@voretaq7: I agree. Instead of additional text at the end of the FAQ, we could think about writing a blog.sf post explaining all this and maybe integrate the core arguments from Jeffs shopping post and the canonical answers. This way, the FAQ stays at a reasonable length and we have a way to explain our restrictions in one place. Doing this explaining is important, I think, at least for the more reasonable users (and the others don't read the FAQ anyway).

For shopping, we can link to Jeffs blog post and for licensing to the canonical answer, but I think we should add some parts on the faq page explaining why we don't like career/salary and legal questions, reachable via # links from the above list and the FAQs toc.

You should link to the question you worry about so others might see it and vote accordingly if they agree, but I doubt that we would choose to overrule it, as our mods usually make really good decisions.

You need 3000 rep, see the faq for more details.

@pauska: I would restrict this to higher rep users. Getting e.g. 10K rep on SF is hard work, and I believe that everyone beyond that level should have a good understanding how the site works. Many below that level (you, among others) would have this too, but it's an easy criterion already used extensively on the site. But I still think that this global scale between 0 and 20K rep used on all SE sites is fundamentally broken. They need to come up with a scale that is adapted to the activity of a site.

Explanation: I posted a comment where I created an analogy between SF and a restaurant and asked what one would prefer: A place where staff deals with unreasonable patrons in a loud and aggressive way and one where they try to be silent about it.

As I said, I am as annoyed by those posts as everyone here. I am also not concerned at all if these people stay around or not. No, that's not true, I can't wait to get rid of them, as they are unlikely to be an asset to us ever, just an annoyance. But the way we react to them is part of how potential valuable contributors see us.

@sysadmin1138: Thank you, that is about my sentiment, and you do a much better job of explaining it.

Your grammar was correct, I misquoted you. Sorry about that, but I am not a Nazi of any kind and not a native speaker :) I agree with you on both other points: SF is better than Usenet, I was merely quoting and I would also request this minimal effort (and would consider it as an act of courtesy of the questioners part), but as I said, being unfriendly doesn't help us, neither in the sort nor in the long run. I also likely wouldn't have stumbled about your comment if if hasn't followed Chopper's one immediately.

Also, I am not eager at all to be a mod myself, and I don't think I would be qualified, being short-tempered myself sometimes and not so well versed in the inner workings of the site or integrated into the community, but if no one else better qualified would step forward, I would run in an election, but not before April, as I start a new job in February and move into a new apartment in March, which will leave not enough room for anything else. And again, I am grateful for your work, my posting was not meant personal, and I hope you don't take it that way.

But frankly, before I step into the lions den that is meta.so with a suggestion like that, I would think that you moderators need to tell Jeff etc. that something must change, as it's in their best interest to keep good moderators.