Rules..No Rules?

[Jerry Todd]

I agree, real names, State or Country, hyperlinks are a good thing, no politics or religon.
Jerry in Miami, Fl

[Tim]

I don't think it's very difficult to tell a hard sales pitch from a helpful link. We should allow links to just about anywhere. But if the intent is an unsolicited sales pitch, I'm sure it would be reported quickly. Heck, as far as I'm concerned, if someone posts the question "Anyone know where I can buy a fine turned pen?" I would fully welcome someone answering the question (especially one particular old man who does way more in a day than most half his age).

Many of the members here have GREAT woodworking information about jigs and such on their personal websites. I'd hate to see that information not offered when it would be helpful, or to make those people post what could be easily linked to on their site. This is the internet right?

I understand the intent of Wayne's rules on this, but I don't really believe that this particular gray area is all that gray.

As alway, thanks Keith!

[Dave Anderson]

Originally posted by Tim
This is the internet right?... I understand the intent of Wayne's rules on this, but I don't really believe that this particular gray area is all that gray.

I think the point is that this is NOT Wayne's site, this is OUR site through the courtesy of Keith and Co.

Always one of the things I DIDN'T like about that site, gone the way of the Dodo... was that you couldn't have any links in your post. You could list the URL and that was OK, but if you made it an actual Link, that was a no-no. Pleeeeaseeee

I say, Link Away! If it gets out of hand, we can always tighten the thumb-screws a turn or two.

[Lee Schierer]

I agree that rules are needed. Waynes rules were strict, but they worked for the better good of the forum. By being strict, there wasn't a lot of gray area to get into. If Wayne said it was wrong, it was wrong.

I know this is off the immediate topic just a bit, but it does pertain to the rules. I feel we are making a major mistake by requiring all posters to register first. I think we will exclude a lot of new comers who, as many of us were, are hesitant to give out a lot of personal info until they know for sure what they are getting into. We have the Member tag that shows up. Until they register, they will be tagged with "guest". .I can easily register with a false name and temporary email from one of the free services and none would be the wiser if I want to make an out of bounds post. I would be a member under the current set up, so it doesn't really exclude anything by making peole register. Trouble makers will still find a way in the door. I think we should invite everyone in and then let time and their post sort things out. Otherwise what purpose does the "member" notation serve???? So eliminate it.

Wayne's rules evolved from his first site to become badger pond. Maybe there is a lesson there that we should start off where we were.

I like the hyper link idea to a point. If it is to point to a site with the information a poster is looking for fine. If it is advertising for mine or a friends business, then it shouldn't be linked. I think you get enough free advertsing saying I made this what not shelf for a commission project.....

I like being able to post photos directly and not have to wait for someone to get back to me. That always seemed like a lot of work for Wayne to have to do. Yet it sure did keep the marginal stuff from ever showing up.

This is the owners site and the first ammendment does not apply. Whoever is paying the bill has the final say. He (They) can always pull the plug.

Keith in the long run it will be your decsion on the rules and the rest of us will have to live with them or leave. I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

[David Plaskett]

I like real names and places.

No politics or religion.

Yes to personal links. I agree with T. Hatfield's post on this subject.

[Randy Miller]

My votes:
Names: Yes (First and/or Last)
Handles: No
Links: Sure
Politics/Religion:No
OT Messages: Yes -- but please put OT in the subject line

Most important -- I think this crowd has a pretty good idea when something is getting out of control. The alert moderator link should be enough to keep us close to the intent of the rules without being too rigid.

I thought Wayne's rules were what kept the Pond civil, but more times than not the members saw the yellow card coming before Wayne got around to it. I also think it was the moderation that drove Wayne to shut down the site.

[John Sanford]

Okay, here's something different.

There's been general agreement that "no politics and no religion" based on the Pond model, BUT at the same time many people are complaining that the Pond was overly strict. Under the strict interpretation of No Politics/No Religion, requests OR offers of prayers would be disallowed, my usual sign-off would be disallowed, Jim Shaver's Veteran's Day post would be disallowed, etc.

What I suggest is that there be a DEDICATED forum for ALL the OT stuff. What car to buy, a good movie, etc. I also have to point out that a fair number of "political" topics ARE woodworking related. Yes, it takes common sense to determine whether the relationship is close enough to warrant inclusion here, but just as an example, here's a few:

OSHA regulations - political, yes. WW related? Definitely, especially for the pro.

Genetic Engineering - poltical, yes. WW related? Ask any biologist working with the American Chestnut, banana trees, etc. Wouldn't we like to see a Cherry tree that grew to full height in 10 years!?

Manufacturing origin of tools? political, darn straight. Since an ever increasing proportion of our tools are imports, and people have VARIOUS different reasons for choosing Tool A over Tool B (and some of those reasons ARE political), I believe that a discussion that disallows consideration of half the factors is no discussion at all.

Now, the point is, if its political or religious and it ain't DIRECTLY related to woodworking, then it should find another home. However, simply because a post has P & R content doesn't mean it should be whacked, a la the Pond. Will requests for prayers for American and British troops in the Middle East be considered political and/or religious?

We do not work wood in a vacuum. Behaving obsessively like we do is childish. Yes, if somebody cruises in here and starts a thread about "them Republicrats", that's over the line. Likewise, if somebody STARTS a thread for the purpose of bashing OSHA, then that's over the line as well. If, on the other hand, an OSHA kudos (hey, they aren't totally useless!) is offered in passing in a post, should it be deleted? It would on the Pond, and frankly, methinks that fits the definition of zero tolerance.

Zero tolerance demands zero intelligence. And yes, THERE ARE POLITICAL overtones to that statement, but also very practical ones for this board. Use your common sense.

As for names: yeah, sure. First Name, last initial, or first initial, last name, or first & last names. Location is pretty useful also.

Flames: refer to the comment regarding childishness. No flaming.

Hyperlinks: eh, don't care one way or the other.

Grace and peace.

[Dave Avery]

All,

Given the number of opinions, it's amazing how much consensus there really is. There has not been any serious disagreement on any of the sensitive issues.

I'm in agreement on most major issues, where I differ, my differences are not significant enough to detail.

I'd also like to thank Keith, both for his time , effort, and resources to start the forum and for asking the opinion of those that use the Forum. Dave - yes, I'm a Yankee, Zack

[Jim Izat]

I agree with what Al Mann has said in his post. Rules and behavior can be a sort of chicken and egg situation. I like to see the name of the person with whom I'm conversing and I like being able to click on a link to go directly to a resource. I think there's a big difference between being able to click on a link in a post that goes to a commercial site because the owner of the site has been kind enough to take the time to provide me with help, and a link in a post who's main purpose is to sell me something.

The Creek is a very fine place to meet and share. I look forward to my visit everyday because of the fine folks here, and the relaxed, respectful atmosphere in which I can slowly but surely chip away at my enourmous lack of knowlege.

Many thanks to our site administrators,

Jim Izat

[Dennis Peacock]

I agree with the proposed rules and FULLY AGREE with using REAL NAMES.....no handles....

[Andrew Field]

Originally posted by Lee Schierer

I know this is off the immediate topic just a bit, but it does pertain to the rules. I feel we are making a major mistake by requiring all posters to register first. I think we will exclude a lot of new comers who, as many of us were, are hesitant to give out a lot of personal info until they know for sure what they are getting into. We have the Member tag that shows up. Until they register, they will be tagged with "guest". .I can easily register with a false name and temporary email from one of the free services and none would be the wiser if I want to make an out of bounds post. I would be a member under the current set up, so it doesn't really exclude anything by making peole register. Trouble makers will still find a way in the door. I think we should invite everyone in and then let time and their post sort things out. Otherwise what purpose does the "member" notation serve???? So eliminate it.

You are correct, if someone really want to post a problem post, then there's not much we can do. But forcing people to register just increases the amount of work the problem poster has to go through, and hopefully they will deem it not worth the trouble.

[Rod Peterson]

<br>
It's interesting that almost everyone has the same general idea about this topic. Interesting, but not surprising to me. I alluded to this in my farewell post on the Pond; in my opinion the people that were successful on the Pond with regard to the rules weren't successful because of the rules but because they were disposed to that standard of behavior in the first place.

That's one of the reasons I liked the Pond and didn't like another place-not-to-be-named. I go there about once every two years to see if it's gotten better--it hasn't. Both of the places I'm now frequenting (WoodCentral is the other), seem heavily populated with people of the same bent. Good. That makes the rest of this easy.

I am firmly in favor of the hyperlinks. There isn't a bit of commercial content on my site, but I'm always eager to direct people there; partly for the Norm's Tools section, but also because I think I have some good answers to tough questions, and I'm proud of my work.

I played a little game that Wayne somehow let me get away with over there; I wonder how many of you noticed. Whenever I posted something that needed the reader to visit my site, in addition to pointing to the laborious steps needed to get there from the Member's Websites area, I always added the little clue after my sig: Think <b>woodbutcher</b> and you'll <b>net</b> the site, because my site is at <a href=http://www.woodbutcher.net>woodbutcher.net</a>. I don't want to start having to do that again.

I am absolutely 100% in agreement with moderate language, but please, English is a feature rich language, and as someone already pointed out, roosters, faucets, female dogs, junk, and so on are ably and properly represented by other words that unfortunately have their own, not so proper alternate meanings. That alternate meaning should not disqualify those words from appropriate use. Besides, I know the HTML workaround to display those words if the forum software is <i>cute</i>.

Remember, folks, the rules aren't for us -- they're for those who can't function without boundaries; we can.

Some of this stuff is just going to be a judgement call for the admins, and then a few rounds of debate with the miscreants who need the attention. The rest of us will be fine, because we already were fine.

[Mike Brewster]

Well said!

[W.C. Turner]

Rod,

Yeah, I used to notice you did that, "net my site". And, I think the reason you managed to get away with it was that folks weren't able to click on it. But, I'm like you, I'd much rather be able to just click on someone's link. It's much faster for me, since my slow, dial up, computer is a dinosaur anyway, and my 2 finger typing leaves much to be desired, both of which take up entirely too much time.