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.