Forum etiquette FAQ needs edit/clarification of (a recent? addition)

[Ramón G Castañeda]

The Forum etiquette and best practices page contains something I had not noticed before.  It may have been added recently.

Don't:

• …
• …
• Personally attack people, their edits (including spelling or grammar)…

Their "spelling"?

How are you going to be helpful to people by neglecting to point out to posters that there are no are such words in the English language as "convertor", "seperate" or "seperations" and that's why they don't find the information they need on the Adobe DNG Converter or separations in the Help files or Google?

[MichaelKazlow]

There is a difference between helping people by pointing out errors in spelling if it is relevant to their query and attacking someone by pointing out they don't know how to spell or use proper grammar.

Example: I have searched for information on coler management. I can find no information at all on coler.

Here telling the person that they are misspelling color would be helpful.

Example: I is having a problem with Color Management.

It is not  helpful or appropriate to tell the person they should write I am rather than I is.

The second type of critique happens. It reminds me of the story about the English teacher that corrects the grammar of a student that writes her a love letter and hands it back to the student---neither helpful nor appropriate.

[Ramón G Castañeda]

Give me a break, Mike.  You're one of the bright minds at Adobe, and in my experience you've been vey helpful.

Now look at the title of this thread:

Forum etiquette FAQ needs edit/clarification of (a recent? addition)

Emphasis on clarification.

As currently written, that sentence can be abused by heavyhanded forum bouncers, of which there's no shortage at this time.

[Jochem van Dieten]

Ramón G Castañeda wrote:

As currently written, that sentence can be abused by heavyhanded forum bouncers, of which there's no shortage at this time.

If that is the reason for your concern I think we should leave this as is. After all, the more extensive version of the guidelines writes the following about moderation policies for corrective actions:

Adobe does not impose explicit rules on community moderators regulating such deletions.

[Guest]

Adobe does not impose explicit rules on community moderators regulating such deletions.

I think when they wrote that, they were assuming a certain level of humanity and discretion in the chosen moderators!

[Ramón G Castañeda]

John Joslin wrote:

Adobe does not impose explicit rules on community moderators regulating such deletions.

I think when they wrote that, they were assuming a certain level of humanity and discretion in the chosen moderators!

JJ, remember that the "moderators" are now being chosen by the same people who chose Jive.

[Kath-H]

Now, will the sanitised version survive?

[Ramón G Castañeda]

Kath-H wrote:

Now, will the sanitised version survive?

LOL!

[Guest]

Ramón G Castañeda wrote:

JJ, remember that the "moderators" are now being chosen by the same people who chose Jive.

Yes I know.

I still have recurring nightmares about the meeting that we were allowed to listen in to.

<shudder>

[Gyno-jiz]

Now you get it. Thank you.

[Ramón G Castañeda]

[edited]

Please keep the discussion on the topic of faq improvements

[Jochem van Dieten]

Since despite the plethora of messages nobody is even attempting to provide any arguments or suggestions towards improving the FAQ, this thread is being locked. Since the only currently provided reason for changing the FAQ is rather pointless in light of the overal rules, I am not updating the FAQ.