jh80 wrote on 2026-05-11, 23:11:

Regarding the Ancient DOS Game Webshow, it seems a shame to kill off a 16-year-old thread due to the new rule. The poster does respond to comments from the community and doesn't seem to be going for some quick social media engagement.

The question I would focus on most is: "Is this a positive or negative for the forum community?" I think it's hard to argue that the Ancient DOS Game Webshow thread is negative, as users enjoy it (myself included) and engage with it. So, an exception would be nice.

I agree, and this is the philosophy I try to follow. I just don’t know how to make this possible in a way which is equitable and not exhausting for the moderation team. In this case, the positive or negative effects are almost all second-order effects, which I hate, because rules based on second-order effects have large blast radiuses, as we see here. The idea that people should show some commitment to the community beyond just posting about their socials was the best attempt I could make at an equitable compromise position. Is it good enough? I don’t know. I hope so. It can always change later if it sucks and a lot of people continue to feel bad about it. An alternative like creating a subforum or one-thread rule tacitly endorses the idea that VOGONS exists at least in part for promotional purposes, which is counter to the intent of the change. Most anything else involves basically picking winners and losers—whether it’s grandfathering, or having some application process, or granting extra privileges to community members in good standing, or whatever. I feel uncomfortable about doing that. I also don’t feel like I have the energy to really examine whether it’s a justifiable discomfort. If VOGONS were the only good place for people to follow creators and discuss I would certainly think harder about how to make it all work, but it isn’t, so I hope that it is ultimately OK to have this slightly narrowed focus on the niche where VOGONS seems to fit best right now. I am grateful for the grace and understanding of Gemini000 and others.

Snover wrote on 2026-05-05, 19:13:

keenmaster486 wrote on 2026-05-05, 15:38:

Can this be clarified? It seems like there is an element of subjectivity in the way you described it in your OP that is not pres […]
Show full quote

Copy code to clipboard

1Posts from established community members about hobby projects like part recreations, PCB kits, etc. is fine.

Can this be clarified? It seems like there is an element of subjectivity in the way you described it in your OP that is not present in the actual terms.

The intent of the rule is to avoid behaviours which we know from past experience encourage destructive levels of commercial/influencer activity, whilst also not foreclosing on occasional similar activity which is actually interesting and beneficial to community. In other words, the rule is trying to express a desire for people who want to connect with others around a mutual interest, and not people who are here to make money or gain subscribers or feed their egos. The only way I know to do this in an interpretable way is by defining actions in this way. Is the problem just that there are some specific examples? Would it be clearer if it just said “hobby projects” without the examples?

If anyone can offer what they feel is an equally succinct but more intelligible way to express this rule, then I can look to make that change. (This is also the same problem that exists with clarifying and formalising the ‘no marketplace rule’, which is why it is not present.)

Honestly, the easiest way to fix this is by simply not allowing project that cant be replicated by the community.
Theres so many dead and abandoned projects that could be actually usefull and which people actually want to build where the people that started them just buggered off never to be seen again after selling boards for ludicrous prices.

Calm, thought out, well-written, balanced views.... what is this world coming to?
😁

Ah, I've noticed that the Who's online doesn't show any AI crawlers anymore. Well done. Not sure if that was part of this update but it's a welcome change.

Great job on the new rules. Honestly, a blanket ban on AI output would have been easier for the mods. Can't see what we would realistically loose by being deliberately old-fashioned in a place where we talk about old stuff.

vvbee wrote on 2026-05-03, 15:55:

Snover wrote on 2026-05-03, 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.

And that culture isn't going anywhere. In fact, its dominance will become increasingly obvious.

In my view, first of all, using the forum is free and there are no hidden costs like on social media, and no money is made at my expense.
To me, that clearly means that if I don’t like the rules, I’ll keep quiet and leave.
Live and let live.
The fact that the administrators take the trouble to explain the rules and any changes, to me, already shows that they care deeply about the users.
I’ve been following this thread since it started and that’s all I can think to say.

tcaud wrote on 2026-05-27, 13:07:

vvbee wrote on 2026-05-03, 15:55:

Snover wrote on 2026-05-03, 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.

And that culture isn't going anywhere. In fact, its dominance will become increasingly obvious.

In that case the community needs to decide what it wants. Earlier it was discussed that self-promotion benefiting the community should be allowed, or whatever. But since (unpaid) creators increasingly benefit from AI, it's not in the interest of this community to take potshots at AI users. The distance between these worlds is only going to become bigger.

Good lord vvbee, remind me never to get stuck in a lift with you.

Great rules thanks mods, keep up the good work 👍

Very good and well written rules! Since 2016 I am active only on vogons so I welcome anything that makes the interaction between members better and smoother. We are discussing about old hardware and software here - we do not need AI!

badmojo wrote on 2026-05-28, 05:42:

Good lord vvbee, remind me never to get stuck in a lift with you.

Personal jabs aside, my views are those of a decades-long developer and formerly prolific FOSS author. Also contributed software to the retro community that ended up benefiting a decent number of people here and elsewhere, starting about a decade ago. Mostly before modern AI, but no chance I wouldn't involve AI in all of it now in some form, which is increasingly the default view in software development and for good reasons. Meaning a developer is likely to think twice before approaching a community that calls AI use fascism etc. It's fine to not want these contributions, but as I said, just on the previous page or so the rules-lawyering got going on exceptions to self-promotion, so there's a pull in the other direction that makes it harder to have both things.

vvbee wrote on Today, 02:17:

Mostly before modern AI, but no chance I wouldn't involve AI in all of it now in some form, which is increasingly the default view in software development and for good reasons. Meaning a developer is likely to think twice before approaching a community that calls AI use fascism etc. It's fine to not want these contributions, but as I said, just on the previous page or so the rules-lawyering got going on exceptions to self-promotion, so there's a pull in the other direction that makes it harder to have both things.

This is a limitation in your own mind, people are posting projects here - including moderators - that involve the use of AI assisted coding to various levels. It's not causing much if any friction. There are also no rules preventing it.

vvbee wrote on Today, 02:17:

Personal jabs aside, my views are those of a decades-long developer and formerly prolific FOSS author. Also contributed software to the retro community that ended up benefiting a decent number of people here and elsewhere, starting about a decade ago. Mostly before modern AI, but no chance I wouldn't involve AI in all of it now in some form, which is increasingly the default view in software development and for good reasons. Meaning a developer is likely to think twice before approaching a community that calls AI use fascism etc. It's fine to not want these contributions, but as I said, just on the previous page or so the rules-lawyering got going on exceptions to self-promotion, so there's a pull in the other direction that makes it harder to have both things.

What are you expecting the mods to do? Provide you with a 20 page technical specification so that you can code a rules engine? These are general guidelines for a large group of people from different backgrounds and cultures. "The community" doesn't have to decide anything - the mods have done that, and it's their forum. All we need to do is apply some EQ and behave accordingly, and be grateful that this place exists at all.

I was a dev for 25 years too BTW and this tedious, pedantic thinking is something I do not miss. It has its place of course but sheesh, this isn't it.

vvbee wrote on Today, 02:17:

Mostly before modern AI, but no chance I wouldn't involve AI in all of it now in some form, which is increasingly the default view in software development and for good reasons. Meaning a developer is likely to think twice before approaching a community that calls AI use fascism etc. It's fine to not want these contributions, but as I said, just on the previous page or so the rules-lawyering got going on exceptions to self-promotion, so there's a pull in the other direction that makes it harder to have both things.

The rule they listed is, "2: You won’t post topics or replies that are authored by AI."

The intent is obviously so people don't just generate and spam a bunch of a AI slop posts. This is has nothing to do with whether you can use AI in software development.

That you seem to struggle with the forum culture and people's attitudes towards AI is a completely different issue here. And that's a you issue, not a forum issue.