By the way, bill welcome to FFL. Your first post was in early June 2007. Perhaps previously you were posting under another name. If not, and you are a fairly new reader and poster, some today, have offered some good advise to new members: read the archives a bit on an issued before making strong statements about them. Thats just advice, and common sense, not a law.
Or simple ask, "I am new, what is the history of this issue. The forum has been here six years, surely the must have been some good discussion on this. And when I type "Guidelines in to Search" it freezes up" But Bill, if you are absolutely clear you know Ricks thinking when he wrote the guidelines, and their intent, then enlighten us and we shall follow you to the Promised Land. But I am guessing, you don't (know) and cant (shed light). Some history: The original guidelines, compose of the 15 you are referring too, were introduce in around 2004. Sans #7 an perhps 14, which were added later. The rest are the same I believe, with a bit of occaisional editing. The ban and administrative sanctions on 35 posts were not added until mid 2007, three or more years later. But this new guideline was consistent with oringianl guideline "15" which states, "If you want to make suggestions for the refinement of these guidelines, please post them in the forum." That has long been the credo here. If you want to change something in the guidelines, you are free to suggest such. If you make a compelling case, and a majority or best a consensus is reached, Rick has repeated said he will amend the guidelines. The original guidelines did not come from lightening from God, on a mountain top, inscribed in golden tablets. No matter what Rick tries to tell you to the contrary :) There has been for years various discussions on amending the guidelines. One such discussion led to Rick imposing the 5 post/day limit. He did so without full consensus, but did so wisely, IMO. Leaders sometimes need to lead, and not follow public opinion. Later, a discussion arose, suggesting that the 5 day limit be changed to a 35 day limit. This was generally beet with opposition, some derision, and sentiments along the lines of "don't fix what ain't broke." The proposal went down in flames. (And actually turq and some other guy suggested a 50 post per week limit at the end of 2005, but that went nowhere) The 35 post/week limit was introduced again, a month or two later. Still no consensus. Still no majority. In fact only one person explicitly supported it as I recall. Though less people strenuously objected to it this time. Despite no concensus, no majority, no authority to do so in the Guidelines, Rick, being bold and fearless, said he wanted to test it out for a month. He did. It was a success. Virtually every one likes the change now. Rick LEAD public opinion and created a strong consensus -- but did so through a vigorous management style. He made the change BEFORE there was consensus, figuring there was good chance there would be consensus after the change. And if not, he could always go back to the old way. i have recently been vigorously calling for the temporary suspension of "flamers". Though flamers is not in the guidelines, it is my short hand for, these guidelines: "This group has long maintained a thoughtful and considerate tone. Please refrain from personal attacks, insults and excessive venting. "Speak the truth that is sweet" is a worthy aspiration. If angry, take some time to gain composure before writing or pushing the send button. My feeling is that this is far more of explicit long standing guidelines than Rick had for the 5/post and 35/post limits. Which were NOTHING. He acted without any authority given by the Guidelines. Given this history, and the long spirit of FFL, and Ricks management, I feel that he has the administrative authority to temporarily suspend people who repeatedly violate the Guidelines. The Guidelines as you say are a set of "requests". I believe they were written in the spirit of politeness, humbleness, non-intrusiveness, and in a non-authoritative tone. That does not mean they can be ignored. They are not optional, IMO. And if Rick feels that he needs sanctions from the guidelines to administer the guidelines -- which seems redundant and a bit silly to me, then we can first discuss adding authority, in the Guidelines, for Rick to administer the forum, consistent with the guidelines. Then we can discuss if blatant flaming is against the stated guidelines, and if Rick should actually use his now guideline authorized authority to actually administer the long-standing guidelines. Like I said, it sounds silly yo mr to do all of that. But if it makes sense to Rick, go for it, Rick. In contrast, I suggest Rick act boldly, as he has before, to administer the letter and the intent of the guidelines, and try some new things out for a month to better align the forum with the spirit of the guidelines. If they don't work, no harm, no foul. Give Rick the benefit of the doubt that he has common sense, and will only try things that he thinks the vast majority of the group will like, once they see the results. LET Rick Be Rick. He hasn't let us down yet. I doubt he will this time.
