Talk:Forum etiquette

From ArchWiki
Revision as of 22:28, 17 December 2013 by Karol (Talk | contribs) (What constitutes ineffective discussion?: closing)

Jump to: navigation, search

Shouldn't "22 Spam" be merged into "9 Advertising/Solicitation"? Why keep them separate separate?

And maybe substitute "plugging" for something else. Urban dictionary has some very funny definitions on that:

--DSpider (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Is ok that "malignant code" is not tolerated on the forum, but is not ok to say is illegal

It says is illegal the creation of "malignant code" (I guess that includes things like trojan horses, viruses etc):

Therefore, do not post discussions about or link to criminal solicitation in any form. This includes, but is not limited (...) creation of malignant code (...)

I'm not saying it should be tolerated here, mostly because Arch forums are not for that. However, the creation of code with pontential malignant uses is LEGAL. (and there is no such thing as "malignant code"; code is not good or evil) About viruses and other malware, the illegal part is the use you give to the code.

So I think that bit should be moved out from the legality section to another part (not sure which one fits)

--Chrisl (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Chrisl,
The intent of this section seems clear to me from the following section (emphasis is mine):
In this context, "criminal solicitation" shall mean, "To actively or passively inform about, facilitate, incite, move, or persuade others to some act of lawlessness or illegal activity."
Perhaps it is a legally grey (or even white) area in some countries, but providing such information may indeed "passively inform [others] about" illegal activities. As such, to err on the safe side, the existing content seems proper.
AdamT (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

To use or not

Forum_Etiquette#Pasting_Pictures_and_Code v. Pastebin#Pastebin_clients warning. -- Karol (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I was about to talk about this myself. Below is a copy of what the warning says. These two pages disagree. --AdamT (talk) 04:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Warning: Do not use It appears to be the most popular site but it is slow, full of adverts, formats the text badly (it will mess up your code) and many people can not even open the site due to aggressive spam filters.

What constitutes ineffective discussion?

It has been pointed out that the forum rules and the Forum Etiquette define ineffective discussion in different ways. Can we fix this please? -- Karol (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The description of that forum already covers it: "Topics deemed to be "bikeshed", recurring, ponderous or ineffective by the forum staff are moved to this forum." Further expansion of the Etiquette would not add any benefit, but would make it less legible.
jasonwryan (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, closing. -- Karol (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)