I can attest to the fact that the Moderators on the primary site are much more "blinder-focused" and restrictive. I am sure that likely has to do with trying to keep topics VERY narrow to simplify AI converting the discussions into harvestable "knowledge-product".
I wish we could have our own exclusively-UbuntuMATE Moderators, and not have those from the remaining Discourse come "step on our toes"!
Don't know if that discussion can even be entertained as a requirement for our Flavour.
Nonsense.
It’s a problem of scale. The Ubuntu MATE discourse has around 0.02% of new user sign-ups and posts 0.2% of the number of topics compared to the main Ubuntu discourse over the same period. There is a limited number of volunteers who moderate both communities. The vast majority of topics in both communities go perfectly fine.
Unfortunately, a small number of people (new or existing) are unable or unwilling to follow the house rules. There are a limited number of options open to the time-limited volunteers to moderate the site. They (here and there) are doing their best to make the place useful and performant for all.
This site proves you can. The Ubuntu community (all of it) has operated the same way for over years. If you want something to exist, step up and make it happen. You have the power.
I want to underline that I was endorsing another user's perception of things being "more rigid with rules", making it more than just one person's opinion.
... and sometimes you need more leeway in allowing discussions to deviate slightly to peripheral issues to ensure a problem/situation is fully characterized, which was my point about the "blinders".
And maybe I should have been more clear that it is NOT all Moderators, but some. What I have personally observed as a pattern, that has crept in occasionally, is, admittedly, my personal perceptions.
You can't really argue with any individual's perceptions just as I won't argue with your sense of wanting to characterize all such cases as
I acknowledge the Volunteers have limits on their availability.
But sometimes, topics need to flow "organically" in order to fully encompass the needs of a situation/topic, which may not have been fully stated at the outset.
My “Nonsense” response addressed the ludicrous notion that moderation is meant to somehow bow down to the AI overlords.
I didn’t characterize “all such cases”.
I don’t want to rake over all this nonsense again and again, Eric. Please, give it a rest. Your constant negativity is exhausting.
It's different and much more rigid with the rules. The one major change is that only Ubuntu and official flavours are eligible for support and if the version you are using has reached EOL it is off topic regardless of PRO status. Also support regardless of flavour is to be asked in the Support and Help category and not in the individual flavour(s) category. Best thing to do is go to the Start Here topic at the top of the page and read up.
And that is the restrictve or rigidness some are alluding to. House rules are interpreted differently by different people. This forum has been very patient and understanding of most posts.
Yep… a happy bunch, here.
I think having a bespoke moderation policy for each flavour is a bad idea.
It is a little bit of a negative to lose the community support for older releases which is often provided here.
There are lots of self-hosting or other options available if you find that your content doesnt fit into Ubuntu Discourse. Now might be a good time to look into them if you think that will be the case.