Dear Les,
We aren't talking about renaming, but about extending it. It isn't
the same.
You can experience it as "stupid", but it aren't our though.
Again we get a hard discussion "what a member should and shouldn't do". A discus-
sion we don't like at all. Freedom is a great good for this board.
To extend guidelines with a kind of rules without any moment of RFC isn't the
right way. Rules must supported by most of the community.
So we turn away from the statement "dredge up old threads".
So it doesn't harm us when some guys and most of those are experience members to
use this board as a chatroom.
So it isn't a problem for us that each morator plays a part he likes. Active or
wait for the interesting things to blow.
Les, your idea By so doing, it sends the message that everyone can
do likewise we doesn't understand. Most of the members and mostly
junior ones doesn't read in an arranged way old topics. Mostly the last
10 days topics get attention.
What is the problem f.e. that some find a very old topic, but the solu-
tion doesn't work. We prefer that he add his reaction to it and not that
he should open (of course he could open) a new reaction. Such order
can makes him afraid. Such order can reduce the right feedback. Such
order skips already available information about his problem.
greetings.
btw: when this board becomes an over regulated place to be we must rethink
which part we want to play in the future.
A nice example of unwanted changes is that the most important topic of UDF
forum "Guidelines for the UDF-section" (F12-4) isn't there anymore. Simple
a move can have big impact to other topics too.
So members must have the trust that after a period position of topics keep un-
changed.
So such moves makes it not easy to ask Henri to implement all kind
of direct links on his mainpages.
So people doesn't take knowledge of existing rules. Not everyone is searching
for a possible available document on another forum.
btw: a possible way of preventing borrowing Ruud's ear is by preparing as expe-
rience members a reaction which contains hardly any information Ruud needs for
useful feedback. Simple one or two words doesn't meet the tests.
One of such examples is when we return a complete reaction on his documentation
as one topic entry.
