Yes, I also think so. The more transparency, the better.
This is not just being “active on the forum for a long time”. Again, transparency is the key. Here is how to become a Regular:
Quote
To get to trust level 3, in the last 100 days…
Must have visited at least 50% of days
Must have replied to at least 10 different non-PM topics
Of topics created in the last 100 days, must have viewed 25% (capped at 500)
Of posts created in the last 100 days, must have read 25% (capped at 20k)
Must have received 20 likes, and given 30 likes.*
Must not have received more than 5 spam or offensive flags (with unique posts and unique users for each, confirmed by a moderator)
Must not have been suspended or silenced in the last 6 months
These likes must be across a minimum number of different users (1/5 the number), across a minimum number of different days (1/4 the number). Likes cannot be from PMs.
You can probably see that you should actually contribute quite a bit and help enough users to get such badge. In my opinion, this badge must be well deserved, the policy for it is reasonable, and we should value such users.
There are only 5 Regulars on this forum in 2 years after its creation (not counting Leaders and Qubes Team), whereas there are 209 Members and 1278 Basic Users (and I wonder how many users without any badge).
Moreover, you can go to @enmus’s profile and see who gave most likes to the user – and it’s me and @deeplow but also many other respected users. You can also see the topics user has created, the posts and judge how much they contribute to the Community. (Transparency is the key.)
You are right, although the user history should play some role in decisions how to act. Your further response to @enmus’s post is reasonable and @enmus indeed did not provide any evidence why user-hostile Qubes future is “obvious”. In my own responses, I tried to understand the reasons why it seemed “obvious”. I think it’s important to understand, because, as I already mentioned, there are other users with such thoughts. It seems to come from a wrong understanding of what “control” is. I would continue this discussion with @enmus, because I’m curious where it all comes from.
But it does change how Qubes Community looks for the bystanders/observers. I am personally trying to moderate without offending anyone unless there is no other way.
I fully agree with you. I just wanted to note that unlisting would not improve the trust of the observers to the Community. In my humble opinion, transparency always works better than restrictions. Especially with the people we want to attract.
I don’t see any bias here. Yes, any restrictions on this forum are not governmental, illegal censorship. Nobody said they were. However it doesn’t mean you can’t call this censorship, or that it does not do any harm. Again, in my humble opinion, the less suppression of the free speech we have on the forum, the better for the Community (assuming the discussion is sufficiently technical and on topic!). This is how we can descrease repeating questions from new users, like the one we’re discussing, from appearing on the forum and breaking the discussions like in this case. This is how we can increase the trust of the people to Qubes Community.
Yes, this is definitely true. If the discussion is not very technical and/or not on topic, like (one could argue) in the current case, it can still be steered into the technical debate, if it would benefit the Community, instead of closing or hiding the discussion. Not all users are very good at expressing their thoughts in English. It doesn’t mean, we should assume the worst, especially when it’s about Regulars.
You should be polite, respectful and not assume the worst intentions. This breaks the forum Guidelines.