Could there also be some clarification on asking to buy or sell parts on the forum ?

weedeewee wrote on 2026-05-02, 18:39:

Could there also be some clarification on asking to buy or sell parts on the forum ?

I add also promoting services.

It's best not to label AI use in negative ways if you want to encourage disclosure of AI use.

Snover wrote on 2026-05-02, 18:19:

What are the new rules?
#1: You won’t use VOGONS to promote social media channels.
#2: You won’t post topics or replies that are authored by AI.

OK, understood and thanks for info !

Easy enough. I have no desire to do either.

weedeewee wrote on 2026-05-02, 18:39:

Could there also be some clarification on asking to buy or sell parts on the forum ?

I will try to work on clarifying this in the terms. My current understanding is that, as with the rules around promotion, the main thing is that no one should be seeking or expecting to routinely engage in commerce on VOGONS. It is unreasonable to expect that this will absolutely never pop up in the normal course of conversation, but it is not the purpose of this place, and there are other forums to satisfy that demand. I trust that community members have been exercising good judgement in deciding whether someone is trying to engage in commerce in a way which undermines the purpose of VOGONS as a non-commercial discussion board, and to flag if that is happening.

Nexxen wrote on 2026-05-02, 20:21:

I add also promoting services.

What services?

vvbee wrote on Yesterday, 02:20:

It's best not to label AI use in negative ways if you want to encourage disclosure of AI use.

It is important to me that the terms are clear about the rationale for these rules so they don’t come across as arbitrary. In that regard it is impossible not to label AI use by their negative impacts to community. If you are complaining about my inability to tell a joke in the announcement post, message received, I have melon ballered out my attempts at levity.

Thank you! I frequent another forum (gaming related) that's unfortunately been overrun by YouTube shills and (to a lesser extent) AI trash, and it's barely worth reading now, and even less worth posting to. This stuff will kill a forum if left to fester.

So posting links to your YouTube is ok, as long as you are an active member of the forum and that your video is simply to give more detail on a post here?

The reason that I ask is that I have created a YouTube channel with the intention of showing the build process for my retro PC cupboard. 8 PCs in the build, and a custom-made cupboard. I was planning to make a post about the cupboard build here possibly with link to a video, and then a detailed post for each PC build, again with a video if people want to see the build process, and see it in action.

Is that allowed?

Snover wrote on Yesterday, 04:45:

It is important to me that the terms are clear about the rationale for these rules so they don’t come across as arbitrary. In that regard it is impossible not to label AI use by their negative impacts to community. If you are complaining about my inability to tell a joke in the announcement post, message received, I have melon ballered out my attempts at levity.

The rationale focuses on AI as an existential threat while the rule invites the use of AI to improve contributions. This may be more in need of rationale than a ban on AI spam. The forum already has a culture of 0-value anti-AI sniping that poisons the well more broadly and will be encouraged by anti-AI sentiment from above.

@Nexxen: Well thought out and nicely written!

@RetroPCCupboard: Second paragraph of section #1 covers it; established users posting links to their relevant content is okay, promoting themselves not so much. 😀

100% agree with the ban on AI authored posts.

I've seen other forums where that's not the case and it just clutters the forum with content nobody wants.

RetroPCCupboard wrote on Yesterday, 14:49:

So posting links to your YouTube is ok, as long as you are an active member of the forum and that your video is simply to give more detail on a post here?

The reason that I ask is that I have created a YouTube channel with the intention of showing the build process for my retro PC cupboard. 8 PCs in the build, and a custom-made cupboard. I was planning to make a post about the cupboard build here possibly with link to a video, and then a detailed post for each PC build, again with a video if people want to see the build process, and see it in action.

Is that allowed?

This rule change is in response to a trend where people create VOGONS accounts to grow their subs and only use them to self-promote, so if you are not doing that, then it should be fine. If it ever seems like it is becoming a problem, someone will let you know before anything bad happens, no worries.

vvbee wrote on Yesterday, 15:55:

The rationale focuses on AI as an existential threat while the rule invites the use of AI to improve contributions. This may be more in need of rationale than a ban on AI spam.

Yes, the rationale does differentiate between different uses of AI, because all technology has both good and bad uses. Nuclear weapons are an existential threat; nuclear medicine saves lives. This isn’t some kind of gotcha, it’s just describing reality. It would be absurd for us to endorse antisocial technology use in a social space. I beg your pardon, I’m not going to engage on these points any more since this is turning toward the ad nauseam I explicitly wanted to avoid.

vvbee wrote on Yesterday, 15:55:

The forum already has a culture of 0-value anti-AI sniping that poisons the well more broadly and will be encouraged by anti-AI sentiment from above.

If the community standards are being violated, please flag those posts. Otherwise, people are allowed to share their opinions, and you are welcome to share yours. “Anti-AI sentiment from above” is imputing a value judgement that does not exist. So is “invites the use of AI”. The rules do neither of these things.

Snover wrote on Yesterday, 04:45:

If you are complaining about my inability to tell a joke in the announcement post, message received, I have melon ballered out my attempts at levity.

Personally, I found that hilarious.

Snover wrote on Yesterday, 17:48:

So is “invites the use of AI”. The rules do neither of these things.

My reading was this rule prohibits posts that are nothing but AI output, period. Are you implying the scope of "authored by AI" is something else? The text hints at prohibiting AI thought even as part of a post, but that's peculiar.

I'm surprised people can't figure out what the rules mean, it's pretty clearly written 🤔

#1 No drive-by promotion
#2 No AI slop post/topic content

vvbee wrote on Today, 06:06:

My reading was this rule prohibits posts that are nothing but AI output, period. Are you implying the scope of "authored by AI" is something else? The text hints at prohibiting AI thought even as part of a post, but that's peculiar.

I’m not sure I would say it is “hinting”. 😀 Authored by AI means what it says: if an LLM is generating tokens, that means that a human isn’t, and we don’t want that. The moderation team don’t really play the rules lawyering games, you’ve been a member for nine years so surely have noticed that. If folks make a good faith effort to follow the intent of the rules, everything typically works out OK.

Snover wrote on Today, 06:45:

vvbee wrote on Today, 06:06:

My reading was this rule prohibits posts that are nothing but AI output, period. Are you implying the scope of "authored by AI" is something else? The text hints at prohibiting AI thought even as part of a post, but that's peculiar.

I’m not sure I would say it is “hinting”. 😀 Authored by AI means what it says: if an LLM is generating tokens, that means that a human isn’t, and we don’t want that. The moderation team don’t really play the rules lawyering games, you’ve been a member for nine years so surely have noticed that. If folks make a good faith effort to follow the intent of the rules, everything typically works out OK.

Here's a test case: Re: Glidos 1.59 not working on Win 98 SE. The only thing the post does is regurgitate AI tokens. By a fair reading of the rule and intent it's at best unclear whether it would count as a violation if posted now, in other words whether it's worth posting. The post is useful to the community, but there's no explicit exception for usefulness, the intent is pro human dynamics and AI is framed as being opposite to it. If the AI post were allowed under discretion the line would begin to blur.

Shut up, vvbee. You're annoying.