Understood. Thank you!

vvbee wrote on Yesterday, 03:01:

The goal is to understand your new rule, which applies to me as a member. Also mapping out the norms being signaled. It's far from mathematical rigor, it's more that coming out with transparent rules to moderate AI is difficult.

I’m feeling frustrated because I want to help to resolve whatever concern you have, but feel like I am not getting a straight answer about what that concern is. OK, you feel a need to understand the rule, but I need to know the answer to both questions I asked, because I (and several others) have done about all the explaining I can think to do, this is apparently unsatisfactory, and I don’t know how this gets addressed to your satisfaction by continuing this way, so I need you to help me to understand how your needs are going to be addressed by continuing this way.

douglar wrote on Yesterday, 16:11:

They don't want to define it, but they know it when they see it.

The most relevant thing is actually the no vehicles in the park problem. 😀

keenmaster486 wrote on Yesterday, 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.)

"AI" tends to falter on a lot of basic knowledge about vintage hardware so they're easily spottable (and unfortunately some are taught this slop, like the 3dfx banshee pulling triple digit frames, N64 games with additive effects, Geforce256 launching on Jan 1999, etcetra.) They also really love the word "retro" because there's a lot of influencers that output that term and that gets into their categorization of how to interpret this place. Retro goodness *chefs kiss* emdash, and that's a Statement :x. Linguistically telling as much as the radial chiaroscuro, biffed perspectives/horizons and sterile line work of 'ai art'. No amount of bad faith rules line dancing is going to handwave that.

Snover wrote on Yesterday, 19:13:

Would it be clearer if it just said “hobby projects” without the examples?

Perhaps, yes. I'm thinking of the situation in which someone has something to share that is not a hardware project. Also, sometimes these hobby projects benefit the OP monetarily, so is a future mod going to construe this rule in such a way as to preclude anything that makes money because it's not sufficiently "hobby"?

Snover wrote on Yesterday, 19:13:

I’m feeling frustrated because I want to help to resolve whatever concern you have, but feel like I am not getting a straight answer about what that concern is. OK, you feel a need to understand the rule, but I need to know the answer to both questions I asked, because I (and several others) have done about all the explaining I can think to do, this is apparently unsatisfactory, and I don’t know how this gets addressed to your satisfaction by continuing this way, so I need you to help me to understand how your needs are going to be addressed by continuing this way.

Nearest I can tell they post AIgen content that people don't really complain about and they don't want to feel like a criminal while doing it, so they want a carve out for posting/replying with AIgen content that is unobtrusive

Snover wrote on Yesterday, 19:13:

The most relevant thing is actually the no vehicles in the park problem. 😀

Apparently I agree with the majority 100% on a vehicle being in the park

Snover wrote on Yesterday, 19:13:

vvbee wrote on Yesterday, 03:01:

The goal is to understand your new rule, which applies to me as a member. Also mapping out the norms being signaled. It's far from mathematical rigor, it's more that coming out with transparent rules to moderate AI is difficult.

I’m feeling frustrated because I want to help to resolve whatever concern you have, but feel like I am not getting a straight answer about what that concern is. OK, you feel a need to understand the rule, but I need to know the answer to both questions I asked, because I (and several others) have done about all the explaining I can think to do, this is apparently unsatisfactory, and I don’t know how this gets addressed to your satisfaction by continuing this way, so I need you to help me to understand how your needs are going to be addressed by continuing this way.

Thanks for the help, it's not just for me but for anyone wondering. There's actually been three different explanations. The rule says "authored by AI". You say any AI token is unwelcome. A mod showed an example of classic slop. The mod's example aligns with how people generally understand "authored by AI," your position as an admin goes much further.

My read so far based mostly on your responses is that essentially the idea "AI is unwelcome" is codified and a few uses are officially tolerated if disclosed. Discussions about AI are allowed but you'd best go elsewhere if you're pro-AI. Beyond that, find out yourself but go by "AI is unwelcome."

The way I see the current situation developing is there's eager dogpiling on AI and its users, which means disclosing one's use of AI is discouraged even as usage of AI generally increases/broadens, which means it becomes harder to know that your interactions are with a human, which may or may not build mistrust and a staleness in the community. That's my view anyway.

Snover wrote on 2026-05-03, 04:45:

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

I add also promoting services.

What services?

In another thread a user offered paid-for services to solve a user's problem.
I pointed out that offering services and offering goods amounts to the same.

The difference is that selling is forbidden, but DosFreak replied that offering services is allowed.
To me it makes no sense and I justified my opinion.

If advertising goods is forbidden so should services.
Examples: repairs, coding, create a web page... anything tied to computers.

Here is the thread: Re: S3 Trio 3D/2X PCI Video BIOS

I'm not the owner of this place, this is a suggestion - to clarify.

The rule clearly says "authored". The word has a very specific meaning. Don't post LLM authored stuff, and it's all fine.

Snover wrote on 2026-05-03, 17:48:

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.

Ok. Got it. Thanks for clarifying. I thought this must be the case, but wanted to confirm before I waste my time making a video.

BTW, I would like to add that I think this community is the most welcoming and collaborative that I have ever been a member of. I think these rules do make sense TBH.

Nexxen wrote on Yesterday, 22:44:

In another thread a user offered paid-for services to solve a user's problem. […]

Thanks for the detail. I certainly understand why this seems inconsistent. There was never any internal policy discussion about it one way or the other as far as I can see, so what happened there was some ad hoc decision-making. It is a decision which fits with the overall approach of only intervening to restrict a class of activity when it is systematically problematic, but it seems like this was not communicated clearly, and what did get communicated was mixed with one personal opinion about compensation.

As much as I personally find that ‘beg bounty’ kind of behaviour viscerally repugnant, my feelings are derived from my personal values. Not everyone shares those, and that’s OK. I feel it would be a misuse of my power and a failure of leadership if I were to maraud around prohibiting conduct and making rule changes just because I found something personally upsetting. VOGONS is a community of people who are mostly not me, after all. There may be some case to be made that this sort of conduct does do harm to community—I’m sure game theorists would have some ideas—but whether or not this rises to the level of a pattern of problem behaviour that needs a formal rule clarification, as opposed to just an occasional thing which warrants informal social disapproval from others in the community, really depends on how disruptive it is when it happens, and whether it is happening with regularity. These are facts I do not know, but I will keep this in my mind for future rule updates.

vvbee wrote on Yesterday, 22:31:

Thanks for the help, it's not just for me but for anyone wondering. […] My read so far based mostly on your responses is that essentially the idea "AI is unwelcome" is codified and a few uses are officially tolerated if disclosed.

OK. In that case, for the last time (and then I will stop engaging), for anyone wondering, for avoidance of confusion: this is an incorrect framing of a policy which prohibits one specific use of one specific kind of AI. The policy does not express or imply any sort of value judgement about use of artificial intelligence more broadly. You can tell this by noticing that the policy includes a statement of intent which describes the reason why this specific use of AI is problematic, and therefore disallowed, whilst not disparaging or really saying anything at all about all of the other potential ways that AI can be used, other than to explicitly clarify certain allowed uses, because people have otherwise been reporting those things already.

I think it is fair to say that when VOGONS has the same rule as Hacker News, it is pretty crazy to claim that it is a “you’d best go elsewhere if you’re pro-AI” rule. (Unless you think Y Combinator have been funding AI startups because it’s ironic and secretly they want all the AI people to go away from the forum that they also pay to run.)

The way I see the current situation developing is there's eager dogpiling on AI and its users […]

I’m afraid that I cannot do much about the sentiments of other community members. If they are expressing their opinions in alignment with the community standards, that’s absolutely allowed. If those expressions rise to the level of harassment, then you may flag such posts and someone will look at them, and if a pattern of harassment is apparent, they will be asked to please stop.