What? How exactly is the post not English or "leet" (1337) language? Please don't tell me you regard the "coz", "Another 1" or "Thanks a lot 4 answers" as leet language. I find these abbreviations absurd, but a long shot from going against any of the cases expressed on the TOS#10. We can't go around pointing out every example of bad usage of the English language, so please give me a break.

------------------------
Partial Retraction: see my post below.

Yes. Those kinds of things were the target of this rule if I have not misunderstood something.

This post wasn't a major violation of the rules, but it deserves a friendly reminder from moderation staff, just like the one Jan posted. There is a difference between non-english people writing posts that look like garbage because of bad english, and people who intentionally stick weird abbreviations.

I must say, you guys have undertaken an interesting method of keeping HA membership small, focused and technical with certain of these rules (like this one)... I actually think it will work, but have never seen it done quite this way before.

Does TOS #10 also apply to what I would regard as general abbrevations used on the web all the time?

Examples:
AFAIK
IMAO
IMHO
BTW
RTFM
TBH

If it does then I think this is maybe taking TOS #10 too far. Otherwise I can't see a problem.

Short answer: no.
New version of rule #10 is against people who constantly use "4" instead of "for", "y" instead of "why", "2" instead of "to", etc. Those "abbreviations" not only don't make the message shorter, but make it way harder to read for most of sane people.

The point was how easy it was to read. Common abbrevations makes it easier IMHO.
Many other "leet" replacements doesn't.

I really do not see the problem with moderation like this. It will only be the first 'No-no!'s that are annoying (to some), but after a while people get the point.

If it only was a 'w00t' it would maybe be a bit strange :-)

But I would rather have a few of those 'friendly reminders' and as a result have a more pleasant reading experience at HA than deciphering hax0r l33tnezz.

I say Good Job, Jan.

Now the next thing could maybe try to spank a few of the 'I NEED RECOMMENDATION FOR XXXXX BUT HAVENT BOTHERED TO SPEND 1 MINUTE SEARCHING!!!!!!!!' posts that are getting all to frequent.

Agreed... I see no problem either. In combination (all the rules thus far), it does seem to formalize things to the point that HA feels like a purely technical/scientific forum -- which I guess is exactly what it is. More power to it -- there are plenty of other audio-related boards oriented toward casual entertainment.

Don't get me wrong. I totally agree with the points of view expressed. I hate to see absurd, childish abbreviations used as much you do or maybe more. Come on, how much time can you save by typing "1" instead of "one", "4" instead of "for" or "y" instead of "why"? People who write like this are classically young teens that waste their time anyway, chatting about silly stuff on teen IRC channels; and write like that just to seem interesting or "kewl". I think it's a good thing that the moderation points this out and enforces good use of the language here. The reason why I protested was that the TOS#10 does not explicitly deal with this case, since it was not strictly elite language, nor non-english nor uncommon abbreviations (they are sadly too common in the internet age). (edit) I suggest that the point be edited to explicitly include this case, as well.
OTOH, I don't think that not condoning this language is for the sake of clarity or ease of reading , since IMHO acronyms like the two used in this sentence, more often make sentences more difficult to understand, if you don't know them, than do the dumb abbreviations anyone with a basic knowledge of English can deduce. (BTW, I didn't know what TBH and IMAO stood for exactly until now, and I think I have had more experience with acronyms than many). The actual reason (and I am perfectly fine with it) would be to keep the conversation at a more mature level by avoiding childish and immature language like the use of the aforementioned abbreviations.

Addendum: After this more careful reflection, I would like to take back the last sentence of my original post, since it would go against what I just typed. I still do, however, think, that brandishing the TOS#10 against this case is not entirely justified unless the point is extended to deal with this explicitly.