Talk:Code of conduct
Maybe make the section "correct" more clear
I'd like to see a clearer title for that section and add a little more on how users should effectively ask for help and report issues. ie they need to state the whole problem and what they have already tried as well as logs and error messages. how to report and ask smart questions are both great links.
- I don't think the ask smart questions is such a great link to give people. It's good for understanding our culture but it's not good for smooth relations with people asking questions. However, I do think how to report should be added; it's concise and to the point without risking antagonizing the person with a question. MacGyver (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree re. ESR. It is an exemplary exposition of the critical thinking required to effectively engage with a technical audience. I have no issues with people finding it difficult; this isn't a distro like Ubuntu where popularity is a consideration. Our focus is on contribution, so a degree of proficiency, or the desire to attain proficiency, is a prerequisite. Reading Smart Questions is a pretty good gauge of that willingness. Jasonwryan (talk) 06:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
[url] and [img] after May’s CoC rebuild
At the start of this year I’ve suggested an addition to the forum CoC regarding posting images. The policy was to post also URLs (along with the [img]) and landed somewhere near policies on fullscreen screenshots. It seems that during the May’s CoC rebuild the two policies got mixed into a single sentence indicating to post only URLs with image size being the condition to trigger that:
Do not post full screen pictures; use links to the images instead, optionally with thumbnails— Jasonwryan
This no longer makes sense in the context of the original premises, which were about readers’ convenience.
- It does give the option "with thumbnails"; ie., if you have to post an image, only post the thumbnail size. Is that not sufficiently clear? Jasonwryan (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Is the rule against so called "power-posting" really meant to forbid expressing thanks?
I understand the reason for the rule against so called "power-posting," to avoid clutter. But is the purpose of this really to stop people from expressing thanks to someone who provided useful information? I just had this happen. A thread was closed because three people (including myself, last) thanked somebody for providing a useful solution to an annoying problem. It seems like an extreme stretch and misinterpretation to view this as people trying to merely "upvote" a thread or something like that. I honestly just was happy to find a solution and felt thankful. Don't people who go out of their way to help in the forum want to feel appreciated? There is so much snarkiness and meanness in online forums, including the Arch forums, I just find it incredible that the moderators are actively suppressing people expressing thanks. And yet, apparently they are. I'm not surprised, it's one of the reasons years ago I decided to avoid the Arch forums, except when I really had to use them. People just got less and less nice in them.
- To recap: someone posts because they hadn't read pacman's message. A community member replies with the answer, which is also documented in the wiki. Then the next *three* posts are empty posts expressing gratitude. THe community is a technical one where people are expected to a) read the package manager's output, and b) read the community provided documentation here on the wiki before posting. So, no, we have no issue with gratitude. Empty posts bumping an old thread are not an appropriate way to express that gratitude though. If you want to express your thanks, then get involved in the community and contribute something more than empty posts to the boards. Jasonwryan (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)