 | | lugnet.announce is not for MOCs — Todd Lehman
|
| | | (...) That's getting pretty bad. Grrrrr. (...) People shouldn't be doing this. lugnet.announce was never intended for announcements of new (especially updates to) MOCs...otherwise the charter would say so. Perhaps it needs to be moderated. The (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: lugnet.announce is not for MOCs —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | "Todd Lehman" <todd@lugnet.com> wrote in message news:GpDp3A.9B9@lugnet.com... (...) to (...) of (...) on (...) groups (...) .announce. I'm not so sure if I'd want a moderated group, if 'moderation' means 'approved by a live person before getting (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: lugnet.announce is not for MOCs —William R. Ward
|
| | | | | (...) Lugnet has gotten by just fine without moderators, but that's because historically the admin(s) have been there to step in and say "don't do that" and even delete messages if needed. If it is expected that admins will continue to play a less (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: lugnet.announce is not for MOCs —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | "William R Ward" <bill@wards.net> wrote in message news:m2advvcf1p.fsf@...rds.net... (...) I agree. I was reading the 'top 1000 noisemakers' thread, one of them referenced back to a post where Todd compiled a list of posters in the .cad groups. It (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: lugnet.announce is not for MOCs —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Me too. Note please that this doesn't necessarily have to be Todd and Suz. (or Steve or Jen or Dan) There are other people who would be willing to take some of the load if empowered to do so. As James Brown said, administration is not (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: lugnet.announce is not for MOCs —William R. Ward
|
| | | | | | (...) Well, lugnet.bulid.announce would be more appropriate in that case. No need to create a new top-level hierarchy. Do the brickshelf and LSAHS subgroups bother you in the web interface? Probably not, but only because of their volume of traffic. (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: lugnet.announce is not for MOCs —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | (...) IMHO, this would be the better choice, to meld well with the current architecture. .moc.announce is counter-intuitive with what's currently in place. May I suggest that if an .announce.moc group is set up that it does not boost posts into the (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: lugnet.announce is not for MOCs —Matthew Gerber
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Not that my opinion counts for anything (since I haven't found the time to build a darn thing lately), but if I may, I would like to chime in with my support for the idea of lugnet.build.announce for strictly LUGNET-wide MOC announcements, for (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: lugnet.announce is not for MOCs —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | | | "Matthew Gerber" <matthew@digitaliris.com> wrote in message news:GpDzIt.Ltw@lugnet.com... (...) fairly (...) content (...) across (...) made (...) Hey, I'm for it! -Tim (22 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Cool LUGNET MOC of the Week (was: lugnet.announce is not for MOCs) —Matthew Gerber
|
| | | | | | | | (...) An addendum to this idea of mine (I can't shake it...it's a good idea, so it's rattling around in my head...): If there were a lugnet.build.announce, everyone with a new MOC of any genré would post their MOC announcement there and in their (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: lugnet.announce is not for MOCs —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Yes. Or maybe just lugnet.build... the announce is a bit redundant, perhaps. (...) It's not the low volume per se, it's the pithiness. Posts that appear there are indeed breaking news. When I want breaking news I would like to review .announce (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: lugnet.announce is not for MOCs —William R. Ward
|
| | | | | | (...) Well, lugnet.build can be rather high volume at times, and announcements can get lost in the noise. It's nice to have a place where MOCs can be announced with followups directed elsewhere. I'd like to see it under lugnet.announce.{moc,build} (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: lugnet.announce is not for MOCs —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | (...) A thought I have is to have a lugnet._.announce for each theme and probably some of the other areas also where folks could announce new MOCs or other newsworthy items related to that theme. It would then provide an easy place to go find just (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: lugnet.announce is not for MOCs —Ben Ellermann
|
| | | | (...) I thought of a similar idea yesterday (lugnet.moc)after reading about this problem. Lugnet.announce.moc would be great because it would allow us to post all new MOC's together and in their respective newsgroups. Then a person who visits lugnet (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: lugnet.announce is not for MOCs —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | "Ben Ellermann" <ben_289@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:GpDuBw.50H@lugnet.com... (snipped newsgroup comments, see what Larry just wrote) (...) can (...) Hey, that's ok. We don't expect new people to be up to snuff on all the norms around here. (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
