[trogggy]

I don't think we have a problem here per se.

That's fine then.

[User 325245]

The only thing I don't like is calling anything "dodgy" or "crap".... you should simply state there is no support for piracy addons, without qualifying anything as "crap".... or boxes, etc.

[trogggy]

The only thing I don't like is calling anything "dodgy" or "crap".... you should simply state there is no support for piracy addons, without qualifying anything as "crap".... or boxes, etc.

First thing I think is 'Presumably you've tried it then?'
How else do you make that judgement?

[Gracus]

I don't think we have a problem here per se.

And I think there is!

What rules say:
-talk about banned addons is not allowed (1)
-no support for banned addons (2)

Why a thread could be trashed:
-OP talk about banned addons so thread is trashed according to (1)
-OP wants help because his banned addon do not work anymore so thread is trashed according to (2)

But there is also other thread that will be trashed: those from people having issue with a core function of kodi or a legit addon BUT have banned addons installed

(1) and (2) do not apply here
You may argue that it is implicitely covered by (2) but it is not clearly written

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The other issue I see...

Someone make a thread that has been trashed because he clearly talk banned addons by mentionning them

Then he makes another thread without the banned addon name anymore

Why this second thread is automatically banned?
At this point there is no more clearly written rules that could apply

----------------------------------------------------------------

Was just my 2 cents...

[User 325245]

The only thing I don't like is calling anything "dodgy" or "crap".... you should simply state there is no support for piracy addons, without qualifying anything as "crap".... or boxes, etc.

First thing I think is 'Presumably you've tried it then?'
How else do you make that judgement?

Because this is only a matter of OPINION. Anyone else could call Kodi "crap" or "dodgy" etc, and that is simply not nice. It is your right to be against piracy, but it is anyone else's right to be PRO piracy. There are piracy partys that were elected to the parlament in several countries. So being against anything is OK, but not calling names. And no, I don't have to try it to be entitled to an opinion that calling anything names is BAD. Even if I tried, I see no issue there? It is my right to do anything I want on my PC. But this is not a discussion on piracy, but rather on how to reduce the number of posts on banned subjects.

[Dangelus]

I don't think we have a problem here per se.

And I think there is!

What rules say:
-talk about banned addons is not allowed (1)
-no support for banned addons (2)

Why a thread could be trashed:
-OP talk about banned addons so thread is trashed according to (1)
-OP wants help because his banned addon do not work anymore so thread is trashed according to (2)

But there is also other thread that will be trashed: those from people having issue with a core function of kodi or a legit addon BUT have banned addons installed

(1) and (2) do not apply here
You may argue that it is implicitely covered by (2) but it is not clearly written

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The other issue I see...

Someone make a thread that has been trashed because he clearly talk banned addons by mentionning them

Then he makes another thread without the banned addon name anymore

Why this second thread is automatically banned?
At this point there is no more clearly written rules that could apply

----------------------------------------------------------------

Was just my 2 cents...

Because we use our discretion and can see the the OP is trying to bypass the rules. If we did nothing then eventually it would be clear that they have banned add-ons installed and they would have wasted the time of good hearted people who were trying to help.

Do you think the problem is that this is done or because they is no specific black and white rule for it? It would be impossible to list and categorise every single eventually and scenario this way which is why we use discretion.

[trogggy]

The only thing I don't like is calling anything "dodgy" or "crap".... you should simply state there is no support for piracy addons, without qualifying anything as "crap".... or boxes, etc.

First thing I think is 'Presumably you've tried it then?'
How else do you make that judgement?

Because this is only a matter of OPINION. Anyone else could call Kodi "crap" or "dodgy" etc, and that is simply not nice. It is your right to be against piracy, but it is anyone else's right to be PRO piracy. There are piracy partys that were elected to the parlament in several countries. So being against anything is OK, but not calling names. And no, I don't have to try it to be entitled to an opinion that calling anything names is BAD. Even if I tried, I see no issue there? It is my right to do anything I want on my PC. But this is not a discussion on piracy, but rather on how to reduce the number of posts on banned subjects.

I was agreeing with you.

ie when a post is binned with 'We don't support that crap' I wonder how they've made that judgement.

[User 325245]

I don't care about how they came to that - it is their right to do so, but IMHO it is much more professional to just say "Sorry, we do not support piracy addons" or "we don't support fully loaded boxes" than "we don't support dodgy addons" or "we don't support crappy chinese boxes"...

[trogggy]

Because we use our discretion and can see the the OP is trying to bypass the rules. If we did nothing then eventually it would be clear that they have banned add-ons installed and they would have wasted the time of good hearted people who were trying to help.

The 'spirit' of the rules' seems to me to be something quite different to what it was when the rules were created.
Back then they were sold as protecting kodi from legal issues.
Now it feels sometimes it's about catching people out.
When they were introduced I was 100% behind them.

'Mission creep' is a phrase that comes to mind.

[Gracus]

I don't think we have a problem here per se.

And I think there is!

What rules say:
-talk about banned addons is not allowed (1)
-no support for banned addons (2)

Why a thread could be trashed:
-OP talk about banned addons so thread is trashed according to (1)
-OP wants help because his banned addon do not work anymore so thread is trashed according to (2)

But there is also other thread that will be trashed: those from people having issue with a core function of kodi or a legit addon BUT have banned addons installed

(1) and (2) do not apply here
You may argue that it is implicitely covered by (2) but it is not clearly written

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The other issue I see...

Someone make a thread that has been trashed because he clearly talk banned addons by mentionning them

Then he makes another thread without the banned addon name anymore

Why this second thread is automatically banned?
At this point there is no more clearly written rules that could apply

----------------------------------------------------------------

Was just my 2 cents...

Because we use our discretion and can see the the OP is trying to bypass the rules. If we did nothing then eventually it would be clear that they have banned add-ons installed and they would have wasted the time of good hearted people who were trying to help.

Do you think the problem is that this is done or because they is no specific black and white rule for it? It would be impossible to list and categorise every single eventually and scenario this way which is why we use discretion.

As I said, the problem is in the fact that it is not clearly written

I already saw peoples arguing that their thread was trashed while it did not break the rules

Just change "no support for banned addons" with "no support for banned addons or kodi install containing one of them" in the rules and you git it covered

[Dangelus]

And I think there is!

What rules say:
-talk about banned addons is not allowed (1)
-no support for banned addons (2)

Why a thread could be trashed:
-OP talk about banned addons so thread is trashed according to (1)
-OP wants help because his banned addon do not work anymore so thread is trashed according to (2)

But there is also other thread that will be trashed: those from people having issue with a core function of kodi or a legit addon BUT have banned addons installed

(1) and (2) do not apply here
You may argue that it is implicitely covered by (2) but it is not clearly written

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The other issue I see...

Someone make a thread that has been trashed because he clearly talk banned addons by mentionning them

Then he makes another thread without the banned addon name anymore

Why this second thread is automatically banned?
At this point there is no more clearly written rules that could apply

----------------------------------------------------------------

Was just my 2 cents...

Because we use our discretion and can see the the OP is trying to bypass the rules. If we did nothing then eventually it would be clear that they have banned add-ons installed and they would have wasted the time of good hearted people who were trying to help.

Do you think the problem is that this is done or because they is no specific black and white rule for it? It would be impossible to list and categorise every single eventually and scenario this way which is why we use discretion.

As I said, the problem is in the fact that it is not clearly written

I already saw peoples arguing that their thread was trashed while it did not break the rules

Just change "no support for banned addons" with "no support for banned addons or kodi install containing one of them" in the rules and you git it covered

A fair comment.

[Dangelus]

Because we use our discretion and can see the the OP is trying to bypass the rules. If we did nothing then eventually it would be clear that they have banned add-ons installed and they would have wasted the time of good hearted people who were trying to help.

The 'spirit' of the rules' seems to me to be something quite different to what it was when the rules were created.
Back then they were sold as protecting kodi from legal issues.
Now it feels sometimes it's about catching people out.
When they were introduced I was 100% behind them.

'Mission creep' is a phrase that comes to mind.

Of course it is still about protecting Kodi from legal issues. You will see many occasions where mods and team members state that we don't care what people do or install, we just clarify what is acceptable to discuss and provide support for on this forum. Some of the team take a harsher stance than others and it shows in their comments but they are of course also entitled to their opinion. That being said it is rare to see "rude" comments from mods unless they have been exasperated by difficult forum members and even on these occasions a lot can be said for context. People don't always receive things the same way as others.

What some may perceive as "catching people out" is just a way accelerating and clarifying whether the issue qualifies for support or not. Like I said, if this wasn't done multiple posts and peoples' time could be wasted (and it does still happen) trying to help somebody and then it is discovered they are using piracy add-ons that have borked their system.

It's not about catching people out. Those people are not vilified in any way. They either continue contributing and benefiting from the forum or they find another community better suited to their needs. It's only the minority who, once they have had the rules clarified to them or multiple occasions, continue to break the rules that get dealt with more harshly.

[bry]

That is why there needs to be an actual test.

[bilgepump]

That being said it is rare to see "rude" comments from mods

I've seen rude comments from other members. There seems to be a tone of responding to a new member asking something they shouldn't with accusations and "RTF rules you moron"

I agree that the rules could be redrafted to better express what is and is not acceptable, in plain english which may be more easily understood. (BTW, try asking a "regular person" to explain the term "third party" and see what happens.)

[trogggy]

The man on the Clapham omnibus would probably tell you that third party is 'What those bleeding cyclists should get.'