Feedback wanted on the three links per week limit in the opt-in forums (and beyond)

Given the choice between no opt-in forums at all, or opt-in with the compromise proposed a few pages back, I think it's better to have the compromise, but I can't say I see any reason to change the current set-up. If a thread in the main forums drifts into opt-in topic territory, why can't a mod just post a reminder to keep on-topic?

I don't visit the opt-in forums myself, and I would probably be more of a mind with Karmaling on certain subjects that have come up related to it, but this really doesn't seem like it needs to be such a point of conflict.

I very much agree - we don't want points of conflict. I want to come here to discuss interesting things - not to fight.

I'm not too keen on much moving of forums because it can be confusing. If a thread starts off not in opt-in territory, why not just request that the person who changed the topic, starts a new thread?

[Laird]

An update based on discussions amongst the board custodians:

Though there are some amicable differences of opinion amongst the remaining three board custodians, we have, for various reasons, come to a compromise on the issue of the opt-in forums: they will not be removed, and nor will we open up that possibility via a vote, however, the rules detailed in this earlier post are instead, as a resolution to the situation, to be adopted, although they remain open to reasonable negotiation.

Additionally, negotiation amongst the remaining board custodians has led to the following agreement: discussion in the opt-in forums of the current situation regarding potential conflict in Ukraine should be circumspect: in particular, strong expressions of support for especially the Russian contingent should be withheld.

It might be objected: "I don't care for these rules to be unilaterally imposed by the board custodians upon the rest of us as ordinary board members". That's totally understandable, however, without the ongoing efforts of the board's custodians, this board would cease to exist, and so, for better or for worse, it seems necessary that, especially to avoid further losses to that team, the sentiments of the board custodians need to be somewhat, and reasonably, prioritised - and we hope that the agreement that we propose to that effect is reasonable.

[Laird]

To add to that: those rules replace the three-links-per-week opt-in forums limit, which has now been removed.

...discussion in the opt-in forums of the current situation regarding potential conflict in Ukraine should be circumspect: in particular, strong expressions of support for especially the Russian contingent should be withheld.

That has to be the strangest rule I've seen adopted on here. ...and without any explanation at all.

Additionally, negotiation amongst the remaining board custodians has led to the following agreement: discussion in the opt-in forums of the current situation regarding potential conflict in Ukraine should be circumspect: in particular, strong expressions of support for especially the Russian contingent should be withheld.

I'm not even sure what that means, it is couched in such diplomatic language! If it means we shouldn't write that President Putin has some right on his side - well what is the point of having a discussion under those conditions? However, it might mean something else - I am genuinely not sure.

The problem is, if you ban certain types of conversation, they may come back inside forums that are otherwise on a psi topic.

I think it might be best to let two or three people moderate, and trust they will make reasonably decisions. Those decisions would have to be somewhat arbitrary but I never did believe it was feasible to moderate a forum from a set of rules.

Would anyone feel too badly if Ninshub, Laird, and whoever else moderates here, were just allowed to get on with it as they see fit?

[Ninshub]

discussion in the opt-in forums of the current situation regarding potential conflict in Ukraine should be circumspect: in particular, strong expressions of support for especially the Russian contingent should be withheld.

In answer to the last posts: we should we have worded this differently. So please now read the rule as stating that discussion about the current situation in the Ukraine is not welcome in this forum period.

The rule comes from my own personal discomfort with this situation being discussed here. I am not comfortable with being associated with a forum where potential disinformation could be spread about a conflict of such significant consequence for the world, and of course one that is not in any way related to the main subject and purpose of this forum. Please note that, though you may disagree, it will be useless to try to sway me.

The other board custodians accept the unilateral imposition of this rule rather than the other options of potentially shutting down the opt-in forums or my leaving the forum over the issue.