Completely true for an articulate, correct, decent point of view. This isn't the object of the above rules.

If an open letter to Nokia consisted of

"
Dear Nokia,

Lo1. Y0u f4gz!
"

The chances of publishing said letter instantly diminish. The formulation you quoted is nothing more than a catch-all for loopholes. If you start with nay-only rules, then you need to add for Lo1, Then another for f4g. Then f4gz. Then then then.

Permissions never work like that. When no permission is present, it acts like a deny-all. Then, users and groups are added as necessary. This happens so that something happens that is unexpected but there is no rule for it, you can take measures.

Otherwise, you need a new rule and by then you can't apply it retroactively (we all know how that would turn out).

I don't claim to understand what reasoning is behind the current set of rules. I'm just saying that if I would have generated such a set (and I did), that would be my justification.

As for freedom, well ... freedom is a closed circle. Each action we take infringes on someone else's freedom. As a result, all freedom has at the very least, two sides. You only considered the side of the honest, well intentioned poster.

I'm not sure what you mean here. The first order of business is to change the terms, privacy policy, contribution guidelines to reflect maemo.org rather than Nokia. The quick and easy way to do that is to not change the substance, just replace the references to Nokia with references to maemo.org. If you are saying that the terms, etc., should be reconsidered and changed after consideration by maemo.org - yes, I agree. But it could take months for that happen with maemo.org governance so I am saying let's not let that interfere with at least making clear this is not a Nokia site when the new forum rules go into effect.

Perhaps this will aid your imagination:

"talk.maemo.org is not operated by Nokia. Do not post topics specifically addressing Nokia, as this is a community forum."

An open letter to Nokia would be composed of topics specifically addressing Nokia, wouldn't it? It sounds like it would violate the above "thou shalt not".

BTW: Some rules are necessary for free speech to exist, so don't try to imply that I disagree with that. In fact, I was in favor of the recent action taken to protect the Overclocking thread after one person demonstrated the willingness to write most of the posts in the thread, repeating his own point of view endlessly (and rudely).

I have seen lots of rudeness towards what I would characterize as anti-Nokia points of view, and precious little action taken against that rudeness. I don't see any reason to give Nokia a pass -- I think that Nokia itself has been rudely silent on several issues.

I think that many people here have a vested interest in supporting Nokia -- in many cases directly financial. Stronger rules will make it easier for those vested interests to use their power.

Pointing out the fact that there are countries less free than this site as a justification is an extraordinarily weak argument. What's the next step -- pointing out that Nokia doesn't run concentration camps? I always laugh when people doing something bad point out that someone somewhere is doing something worse.

Anyway, I don't think that this site is the root of all evil. I think that it occasionally missteps and deserves to be criticized for doing so. It has the tendency to use its power to bolster its goals. It is not entirely objective.

These are common flaws, but flaws worth resisting.

That was a very interesting post Geneven and brought a thought straight to my mind, just where and what is this site trying to achieve here?.

Some say it is not a Nokia support site and some say it is a support site but not run by Nokia yet they want to set new rules and regulations, for what? for who?.

All i see on this site is support and some very negative talk AND a LOT of controlling going on so in the end all that will happen is people will shy away as it is not a comfortable site to talk and enjoy.

So my main question... just what is this site trying to achieve and where does it fit in with Nokia?.

I'm posting from an N900 so please forgive the formatting.

I can now see where you would get your understanding about open letters to Nokia. I agree they should be allowed. So feel FREE to suggest an alternative wording instead of complaining with the assumption nothing will change.

And while you may say you support rules, you are consistently on record (even in that post) of leaping to the unsupported conclusion that they will be used abusively. Moderating history here shows that abuse is EXTREMELY rare. I don't think Reggie wants moderators to act abusively; I have NEVER seen him do so.

While constructive criticism is very welcome, bashing anyone-- including moderators-- has no productive value. Very often, Geneven, your remarks are more destructive than constructive. Rude. Snide. Sarcastic. Degrading. Hyperbolic. What is your expected outcome with that approach?

As for the reference to freedom in certain countries, it's equally as relevant as your misguided assertions that we moderators will wield guideline 'power' like a weapon. You could not be more mistaken. If anything the goal is quite the opposite. If this place became even remotely as oppressive as you allege it will (or is), I will be the first to quit in protest.

EDIT: Sorry, my personal remarks were out of line and hypocritical.

I resort to sarcasm partly out of habit and partly because I don't expect to win this issue, and sarcasm consoles me somehow.

You say that moderating history shows that abuse is rare. I don't agree. Threads have been ended prematurely, with moderators giving themselves the last word on the issue at hand. That's an abuse. Moderators have threatened action when threats weren't justified or affected participants who were doing nothing wrong. Conflicts with users who had the "wrong" opinions were escalated when they could have been well, moderated.

Entire threads that were not off-topic have been moved to Off-Topic. The titles of threads have been changed, having the effect of encouraging Off-topic discussions.

Bad behavior on the part of those pro-Nokia has been tolerated while bad behavior on the part of those anti-Nokia has been punished.

My one and only official complaint about the action of a moderator (who I actually think was mostly a good moderator, by the way) was completely ignored -- at least, I never received a response to my complaint. This was an abuse.

I'm glad that people like Texrat and others try to moderate moderately. But they are not perfect, and the atmosphere on this site has been affected by the style of moderation, I think. It alarms me when other people on this site want stronger action and less freedom. Don't tell anyone, but I think that the movement of off-topic topics off the list of active topics has resulted in an improvement.

I don't think that stronger action is needed.

I guess we disagree on the definition of 'abuse', as well as 'premature'.

Oh, and as for winning arguments-- it's been my experience that use of sarcasm in an exchange tends to set one up for debate failure.

Godwin's law!

Back on topic though:

I really fail to see why some people are afraid of these rules. When I was moderating, more often than not, I would be yelled at for "making up the rules". I thought the moderators were using the teachings of a school named "common sense", but as time went by, we started noticing that common sense is a very, very fluctuating metric. People with different backgrounds, different involvements in different topics, and different points of view will have different "common senses".

Then, I see this wonderful idea that we will finally have a rulebook, something that had been whined for so often.

I think that most moderators are actually setting up these rules to protect themselves -- please don't start crying, and finish reading my post.

I truly believe most mods are tired of having to legitimise their actions. We are courteous enough to tell people when we take actions (and even then, we get yelled at, claiming that, for example, "we've deleted the evidence so that nobody will ever know what has happened", which is utter bollocks, considering that the moderators use the "soft-delete feature". See my reply to RevdKathy for further details).

Having this rulebook will allow moderators to point the offending user (or when they warn him) to the rules. There will be no more "you guys are bullies" talks, there will be nothing of the likes. At least, that's the hoped outcome. YMMV.

It is about damn time that people start understanding that moderators are here TO HELP. We are not your enemies, we are not Nokia's pets. There is not a big conspiracy to keep certain points of view out, as long as they are on topic. Post a nice, clean thread, with informed points of view, or at least, asking for information from those who hold it, and then use that as the foundation of a debate, rather than stupidly asserting things which will never hold, and basically troll the place down.

I hope that some of you recognise yourselves as you read these lines, because if you don't, then I really believe that no matter what we try to do, there will always be trolling, abuse, and a really stinky bad smell around here.

Get a bloody grip, we're here because we love the devices, and the OS as much as you do. Nothing less, nothing more.

You want to know the irony of things? Even when we ask the community to help write the rules, some people cry wolf. You have the ability to change things to your liking. Argue with thoughtful and thought-out replies, change our minds. This is the whole spirit of debate.

Please do something about these kinds of thread starters:

http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=57241

I know there are no apps planned by commercial companies for this device which makes threads like these all the more cruel. Infraction points are in order.

This is true of any site and any moderators, if The Savior himself would be super-mod. In fact, should that happen, I'm outta here, I'm not about to debate anything with a person that advocates angels.

(later edit: I dribble away here, the rest of the post is not aimed at you)

Well, that aside, what I like about this new system is that it allows for lighter touch. IMO, having a gradient soaks a lot of error on mod's part, since I no longer am on a ban-or-allow mode, thus I'm able to soak off a bad call via a warning that expires with no lasting effect (right?). It should at least ensure that only people who overdo something get anything tangible in return.

Whether or not one's right in his/her point of view is less than important. After all, should one mod disagree and warn you over a post, you can just let it go. You did post your opinion, people saw, that's the target right there. If one's target is to repeat the point 50 times, does it matter if he/she' right?

From what rules I saw, nothing bad, final comes for posting an opinion, regardless of what it is and how you put it.

Actually, you can post an advertisement (10) of (and with) inappropriate materials (10), by using inappropriate language(5) and still be under the 1-day ban.

Hmm. You can cross-post (5) illegal materials (20) and still be a day off.

Hmmmmm. I can personally atack someone (20) using illegal materials (10) by photoshopping one's head on something that belongs in /b/, then use it as my avatar (5), my signature (5), and cross-post (5) it just before my week off?

Rili?

I demand this oppression be immediately reviewed. (help, help, I'm being repressed!)