Since the beginning of MN, here+there, Robert has posted some forum guidelines that are very helpful (to me, anyway.) Below are 3 that come to mind, there may be others.
(i think, fwiw)
it's reasonable for members to ask about guidelines, i.e., we are not "mind-readers."
i agree with Robert and mods when they request members "be adult," but, again, when they have a specific vision of what that means, and become (understandably) annoyed when members do not comply, then, definitions and guidelines - only make sense.
(to me) establishing guidelines does not conflict with being "mature;"
however, having to constantly revisit and/or micromanage, would not be.
MD was a forum initiated by teens, so (i guess) being an adult wasn't a priority (?) .. i can't say.
i was not there. MN is not MD.
Robert has stated he's not wanting MN to be a carbon copy of MD; i'm not aware of anyone protesting that. everyone has things they miss, but, no one is asking for a carbon copy.
several members have informally mentioned (to me) they like MN better, and have hopes for its future. This thread, Page 13 / Regarding OP parameters:
Russian Hacking thread, Page 20 / A definition of discussion forums:search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&keywords=russian&start=190
temporal1 wrote: Robert wrote: temporal1 wrote:
Is 3 "the charm?"
3 threads in about 24 hours with OP parameters?
if so, i hope it helps thread content quality.
in order to work, it requires BOTH respect of members AND allowance by admin/mods.
a community effort!
i see no downside to respect of others' OP parameters.
but, i don't claim to see in full.
These target a group for a purpose. They do not exclude a person because of personality issues.
of course not!
in the past, this was successfully done by various members .. i recall, lesterb and EdselB, but others, too. your response makes me think i've been misunderstood .. but, that's ok.
communication mix-ups happen.
i'm glad for the response. when i posted about this in the past, i don't recall a response (from anyone.) so, i have wondered.
Nonresistance thread, Page 2 / Protocal viewtopic.php?f=4&t=295&start=10
Robert wrote:It is also okay for people to state their opinions, even if they are wrong.
We are not setting policy here, but speaking [off] the cuff on a lot of things.
We do not have to be professional or experts to speak.
It is also okay to be wrong when we do speak if we are being sincere and just sharing our opinions.
Sometimes speaking and listening to others' opinions can help us grow our knowledge.
I also have no problem with someone having an opinion with little information as long as they are honest about their position.
All the research in the world also can not give a person wisdom. So often we mistake information for wisdom.
It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to have a gut feel for things.
Robert wrote:Protocol got wiped out with the big crash.
I have no issue with someone targeting a group for response.
The original post (OP) can ask for a set group, not individuals) to be included or excluded for a time, but I will not move any ones post who chooses to post in that thread unless the mods agree and we set it up that way from the very start.
We are all adults, so if someone asks for a targeted group, I can not understand why the rest could not be patient with that request. If that request seems out of line, feel free to contact one of the mods to evaluate.
I personally loved the parallel thread.
I considered blending the two together later, but it can get messy if this happens all the time.
I would request that this is the exception, not the rule.
Saying in a thread you would like to hear from a set group is fine.
I would request that there is no command that others can not post at all.
Delaying their posting through request is fine and the rest of us should be respectful enough to do that.
The OP needs to be willing to take responsibility and babysit their thread then and after a few days, open it for others. Do not think you can spout orders and expect someone else to do the work.
We are here to serve each other, not become lords over each other.
In response to Robert's latest post, Ernie requested it be put in a "sticky thread," i do not know what that is.
i agree, it would be helpful for members to have a place to refer to Robert's posts wherein he is sharing his goals for how this forum might best work.
notice, most of Robert's language is in request or suggestion form.
i would describe this as "the honor system,"
which is quite appealing.
(i think) of the honor system as a bedrock Christian way .. seeking the spirit of every rule, not the letter.
i don't know what a sticky thread would look like, that's not for me to decide, but, in the event, above are some suggestions. others may have other examples to add.
now to hit the submit button, and hope this
will be accepted in the spirit intended.