Quote:
Surfeur:
You should have guessed exactly how such a thread would play out. 

Quote:
Well, I sincerely hoped an intelligent discussion about the right level of precision of the rules. I still think that most problems we have on the forums come from the fact that rules are written with a black or white choice, but many situations show that common sense asks for a light shade of grey. Topic about spaces in titles show that that time, most users used their common sense to propose a solution rather than applying blindly the rules, and I hoped that example would help to see where to go.

Quote:
"Common sense says the sky is blue."

Quote:
I'm completely jealous of the German Profiler forum. I bet they have civilized discussions and get things done quickly and efficiently without the inane back and forth over nonsense.

Quote:
Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting Vittra:

Quote:
Surfeur:
You should have guessed exactly how such a thread would play out. 

Well, I sincerely hoped an intelligent discussion about the right level of precision of the rules. I still think that most problems we have on the forums come from the fact that rules are written with a black or white choice, but many situations show that common sense asks for a light shade of grey. Topic about spaces in titles show that that time, most users used their common sense to propose a solution rather than applying blindly the rules, and I hoped that example would help to see where to go.

To respond to your first post, I agree with you that a little common sense would do us some good here.

The rules are borne out of a response to when we had a blind contribution system. We had guidelines (which some users misinterpreted the word "guidelines" to mean flexible suggestion rather than defined rules). A user would make changes to a profile and then click to contribute. There were no contribution notes or voting by other users. At some point in the future, users would see the update come through. Another user, unhappy with the change, could contribute their version and that's where our term "ping pong" came from. Profiles could bounce back and forth endlessly between variations.

The rules project got underway. And while the rules were being written, Ken debuted the voting system we have now. Shortly thereafter, the rules were published. Contribution quality has improved immensely with implementation of the voting system and the rules.

Is it because of one or the other or both?

I think that both have helped and I would argue that the public voting has helped the most. Of course, we need rules in order to know what to contribute and how, but we do get into trouble when the rules force us to do things that most people recognize as "wrong".

That's where your suggested rule change would have helped. Although I didn't feel it was perfect, I was one of your 21 voters.  I figured we could work on it to refine it to meet our needs, but it didn't have the support required unfortunately.

But it would have been helpful. Potter Stewart, a former US Supreme Court justice, made a famous quote in a ruling on obscenity when he said that hardcore pornography is hard to define "but I know it when I see it". I have thought for some time that we need a "I know it when I see it" clause (eg. common sense) in the rules that allows us to contribute something that doesn't perfectly follow a rule as long as we explain in our notes what we are doing and why. The contribution would be voted on and given extra evaluation by the screeners perhaps.

The argument that there is no common sense since everyone has their own common sense is really invalid. There will always be someone who sees something differently, but if you have a majority opinion in a large group, you have common sense. Whatever one chooses to call it, perhaps "letting the voters and screeners decide" is a better term.

Quote:
Since you are quoting, James. Our founding fathers also said "Beware the tyranny of the majority". Our current Congress is living proof.

Quote:
James:

I believe we fit that exactt scenario and have for a long time, including by yourself. how many times have i seen said around here, He is only one, he doesn't count"(paraphrased) but the meaning is correct and you your self have used it. Beware the tyranny of the majority.

BTW, James don't try to offer classes to me in American History, you will lose.

I also vehemently disagree with your reference to slavish adherence to the Rules. But then this comment comes from one who has actively undermined and ignored the Rules for quite awhile now. To the point where you discussion of the Rules has almost become laughable.

Skip  

Quote:
You are right. because unlike you and others I do not make the kind of statements that says you don't count, nor dioi mkae the kind of calls that says simply because he is opinionated and unyielding he should be banned.

I instead look for ways when ever possible to accomodate a user's wishes, just as I have done MANY times, including surfeur and his concern for Francois, I can't implement, but I have figured a way to stay true to the rules and still allow him to capture what he wishes and all that remains is for ken to implement it.

You have destroyed your own credibility, James, with your desire to exclude people using all the various tools that Kem has oput in place and all that you reveal is your own childishness, AND your desire to exclude some users. It is truly sad and pathetic.

Skip