IMPORTANT POLL: Should there be an off-topic section?

[tggzzz]

Moderation on something like that is not "difficult", it is irrelevant.

I don't understand what exactly in it is irrelevant.
At least participants experience of the thread is relevant, all of them.
Shy voices must be guided, maybe guarded.

Grumpy old men are not exactly a disappearing resource but their electronics can be.
More vocal folks will also always dominate, difference is only in contents.

Community moderation will work indefinitely if community stays homogeneous enough.
And fails instantly when heterogeneous goes over the tipping point, simply because different groups have so different demands.

Bringing up stackexchange indicates that your moderator is preventing things.
My moderator is maintaining things.
And Thread Topicness and Section Hierarchy Issues of Maintenance Hierarchy would handle nit pickers.

Community moderation of heterogeneous community can still work but then its homogeneous parts must be, at least partially separated.
If Other Communities here get Cars section it can finally and quite easily dominate the traffic of the whole place but would that be a bad thing.
Forums can also split under the same roof, so Dave would still benefit, I guess.

We seem to be in agreement!

My point was solely that on that thread there was nothing that needed either formal nor community moderation. It was trickling along nicely with the usual interplay of viewpoints. That is typical of this forum (unlike elsewhere) and is one of this forums strengths. OTOH if someone simply wants to cut and past "solutions" (usually overly simplistic and without comprehending them), then stackexchange is ideal - but boring and sterile.

Your "tipping point" divergence is relevant. History shows that all communities will evolve and have schisms. Whether they can coexist in different areas under the same roof is less clear. Often an amicable split is the best option.

It is all shades of grey

[AVGresponding]

And can we now stop this please and get back on what this thread is about.

Do we want a new section to post non electronics related topics in or not.

I wonder if a change of the original post with the latest view on it being for other hobbies only, and still no politics, religion and guns, can help in making a more founded decision.

I'd change "guns" to "weaponry", otherwise you'd likely get some smartass posting about crossbows, combat knives or somesuch and saying "it's not a gun, so I can post about it".

Pens can be more devastating than swords, and thats without using them as a stiletto.

When rules become explicity codified in writing, barrack room lawyers and officious busybodies have a field day.

Extend that argument to its logical conclusion and we should have no codified rules at all.

If someone uses a pen to stab someone, they are by definition using it as a weapon. If someone uses a pen to write rhetoric that incites people to violence, again, it's being weaponised. If we say discussion about weaponry is not allowed, then the logical assumption is that discussing how to stab someone with a pen, or how to trigger a riot by writing inflammatory things, would be against the rules.
Equally, a discussion about how to use a pen to provide a breathing tube in an ad hoc trachaeostomy, or how to write a letter designed to calm an angry argument, would not be forbidden.

That is the approach promoted by anacharists. It is beguiling to 6th formers (i.e. 16-8yo UK schoolchildren), but a little consideration leads people to realise it is immensely destructive.

The trick is to find the right balance between rigidmrules and anarchy. That requires humility and wisdom, both rare attributes.

So, no rules is bad, inflexible rules is bad, quite obviously because they are extremes. Therefore something in the middle is good. Herein lies the problem. Everyone in the world will have a position somewhere between those two extremes (and I suppose there are a few nutters who are on the actual extremes), but everyone will have a different position. So, whose view do we accept as a nominal "norm" to which we can all abide? Yours, I suppose?

[tggzzz]

And can we now stop this please and get back on what this thread is about.

Do we want a new section to post non electronics related topics in or not.

I wonder if a change of the original post with the latest view on it being for other hobbies only, and still no politics, religion and guns, can help in making a more founded decision.

I'd change "guns" to "weaponry", otherwise you'd likely get some smartass posting about crossbows, combat knives or somesuch and saying "it's not a gun, so I can post about it".

Pens can be more devastating than swords, and thats without using them as a stiletto.

When rules become explicity codified in writing, barrack room lawyers and officious busybodies have a field day.

Extend that argument to its logical conclusion and we should have no codified rules at all.

If someone uses a pen to stab someone, they are by definition using it as a weapon. If someone uses a pen to write rhetoric that incites people to violence, again, it's being weaponised. If we say discussion about weaponry is not allowed, then the logical assumption is that discussing how to stab someone with a pen, or how to trigger a riot by writing inflammatory things, would be against the rules.
Equally, a discussion about how to use a pen to provide a breathing tube in an ad hoc trachaeostomy, or how to write a letter designed to calm an angry argument, would not be forbidden.

That is the approach promoted by anacharists. It is beguiling to 6th formers (i.e. 16-8yo UK schoolchildren), but a little consideration leads people to realise it is immensely destructive.

The trick is to find the right balance between rigidmrules and anarchy. That requires humility and wisdom, both rare attributes.

So, no rules is bad, inflexible rules is bad, quite obviously because they are extremes. Therefore something in the middle is good. Herein lies the problem. Everyone in the world will have a position somewhere between those two extremes (and I suppose there are a few nutters who are on the actual extremes), but everyone will have a different position. So, whose view do we accept as a nominal "norm" to which we can all abide? Yours, I suppose?

Yup, that sums up the tension. Nothing new there.

I am not stupid enough to claim to have a solution that has eluded humanity for 2 or 3 millennia. Neither am I a dictator/God.