Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Joe Matt
Looks to be just a back up clause that will be pulled out incase any more threads come up that aren't robotics related that cause a problem. There is no way Chit-Chat will be removed, but I imagine that if someone posted another "which religion and you" thread and had it removed, they can point to this rule, which simply means, CD can do what it wants with any thread not pertaining to robotics specifically.
Of course, this is how I view it, Brandon might want to elaborate more.
|
Your explaination makes sense, but the clause's placement made me a little bit confused because
all threads which violate the law or are harmful to other members would probably be deleted/closed unconditionally. However,
not all non-robotics related discussions would be deleted/closed unconditionally. This could lead to some confusion - some people might think that having an offtopic discussion is just as serious an offense as posting about file-sharing.
But, if the rule is as Joe interpreted, I would say that this isn't a bad addition, but perhaps not as clear as it could be. Also, if the rule has the same intent as what Joe described, why doesn't that fit under the "harmful to other members" section of the clause? If a political debate is getting out of hand and people are getting upset, couldn't the thread be closed under the premise that it is "harmful to other members" instead of under the premise that it is not "robotics related"? Thats why I asked what problem this addition was intended to address.
edit:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Alan Anderson
Chit-Chat is useful and I wouldn't expect it to be shut down, but certain topics definitely ought to be zapped if they threaten to turn from discussions to attacks.
|
Again, why wouldn't this fall under the "harmful to other members" section of the clause?
I don't think this rule is bad, I'm just asking for clarification about it's intended solution to a problem.