From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8F01138335 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 06:45:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1155DE0D38; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 06:45:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4D1DE0D13 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 06:45:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.16.0.17] (cpe-72-227-68-175.maine.res.rr.com [72.227.68.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: desultory) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BBA8F340952; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 05:02:09 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions To: Rich Freeman , gentoo-project Cc: forum-mods@gentoo.org References: <2beb3305-396f-8b10-e2a1-4008d8505fa9@gentoo.org> <2878606.mSfXTjG61N@porto> <2983640.de6YSfGzij@porto> <353de8d8-8928-3e31-3aaf-6f78ebe54fc8@gentoo.org> <4d147aaa-ce46-10aa-243c-7a84dfc40bc3@gentoo.org> From: desultory Message-ID: <76609f69-7ac1-1a27-34e6-262646be904f@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 00:01:39 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: ffe02047-831e-4c46-a302-cf4130728a25 X-Archives-Hash: 14372539ad10bd6a302ea97f3d9f958f On 02/04/19 08:45, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:38 PM Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn > wrote: >> >> A compromise / an alternative to removing OTW (if deemed a bad thing) would >> be to limit its public reach by allowing only registered forum users to >> access it. >> > > If it isn't a bad thing, then why would we want to hide it? If it is > a bad thing, why would we want to stop merely at hiding our shame? > As noted, I do not believe Off the Wall to be a "shame", but we have considered limiting it to registered users for purely practical reasons, primarily as a means of limiting the appeal of the forums to spammers. Making it accessible only to those who have logged in does not remove its value as a social area while it would keep crawlers, for spam bots and search engines alike, out.