We have recently updated the Terms of Use for the BWL forums. Please take a moment to peruse them once again.

I don't see a lot of "new" information in there.

If there were, I would have said "We have overhauled the ToU."

Still this sounds perhaps too harsh. Why not allow one (and only one) "questioning" on the topic and one final answer (from the Administrator / moderator).

Example: Somebody would advice joining two topics instead of deleting (/locking etc.) one of them. Obviously he could have a point and if he would say it politely, he deserves an answer.

Of course even now he wouldn't get BAN for this type of question (/questionning). That's why I think, that the formulation is perhaps too harsh.

Oh, I see.
The "update" must've been pretty minor, then.



I'm guessing they're sick of all the crap going on as of late and want to put an end to it.

Actually, the rule quoted by Jab has been in effect for a long time (years), so it's not something new.

Generally, any discussion (whether it's questioning a rule or not) about the Terms of Use and about administrator/moderator decisions should happen in Private Messages (PM). I have just updated the Terms of Use to reflect this. If you (or anyone else) have any more to add to this topic that is related with specific points in the content of BWL Terms of Use, please consult Sir Carnifex or myself in a Private Message (PM). This post of Sir Carnifex was primarily meant to be announcement. Of course, general questions are allowed and welcome (what is the change in the ToU, where can I find the ToU page etc.).

Nonetheless, since you, Jab, asked the question publicly, I'll reply here (but any further discussion about specific points should happen in PMs):


I know you meant this to public posts (as the ToU says), but your ToU quote can be misleading, so let me quote it exactly (marking the difference as well):


I know you meant this, I just clarified it for the readers. In other words, the user can contact a moderator and/or a Council Member if he has any questions related to a moderator/administrator decision.


Let's approach it with common sense:
- Does it make sense to write that one post publicly at all if no further discussion is allowed (because the administrator gives an answer and that's all)? Then why should it be public at all? To inform the readers "hey, I have a problem with this", and possibly expect their "one post" about it too, but then what would happen? Everyone uses up his "one post", but then no one would be allowed to continue the discussion, no one would be allowed to react to another person's post.
- If everyone would have one such post per topic, it could result in a discussion of administrator decisions after all, wouldn't it? What would become from the topic if all (possibly tens of) participants would write just one post? The topic would be completely hijacked.
- It's problematic to enforce this correctly anyway, i.e. to deal with each specific case. But this is the smaller problem, as I've said -- the bigger is that I think it doesn't really make sense.

I think there is a common misbelief among the visitors of internet forums, by the way. It is that they believe everything can be publicly discussed, criticized, changed etc. Actually, it's possible, but sometimes very inappropriate. Certain things simply aren't for public discussion -- such as situations/topics where the public has nothing to do with the case -- it concerns the two individuals only. This is why the Private Messenger is available.

In our case, a problem with an administrator decision exclusively concerns the administrator and the person who questions/criticizes the decision. The main reason why many forum visitors would prefer the public discussion of such issues is that they expect support from other visitors, who possibly agree with him/her etc. No problem with that, but such public discussions are only fruitful when they can result in any change. Undoubtedly, discussions of such nature easily result in a big debate or flaming, and from this point, it isn't fruitful any more. Detailing the reasons why such public discussions are useless for estabilishing any rules is beyond the scope of my post. (One of the reasons is that each individual has different views and personal preferences, and this makes any agreement very difficult, because it makes people biased.)

Finally, one important point: rules are rules because they are strict. A rule is strict, not harsh. It doesn't mean that the most severe penalty will be applied in every case. In fact, BWL is very very tolerant with those who unintentionally violate rules (e.g. because the user is a new member), usually we even don't send a warning, but instead a friendly explanation and reminder about the rules. The Terms of Use protect those who want to have fun here or to find/get some useful information (no one uses the Terms of Use to find pretexts to penalize any member or visitor). In other words, they filter out forum trolls, troublemakers, swindlers, etc.