| |
Time for me to play devil's advocate...
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Richard Noeckel writes:
> Thus, as citizen we must demand greater freedoms.
At the risk of sounding elitist, I point out that the "citizens" of Lugnet
are arguably the paying members. As a member who posts exclusively via the
web interface, I have no knowledge of the difficult verifications I keep
hearing about. Few of us would hesitate to drop $10 on a night at the
movies (or whatever), so I think the $10 to be a member here is very
reasonable. Is this problem indeed something members encounter?
If the verification problem is something that even members get when not
using the interface that I do, then I argue that maybe the web interface is
your solution if you really don't like the system, and who among us doesn't
have a web browser available half the time anyway?
> At this point in our communities development I believe we need to grow.
> And I honestly think that our current posting procedure is hampering our
> development.
Growth of our community is probably a good thing, I agree. I would need to
be made more clear on the points I brought up above to know whether the
posting procedure really is slowing that growth.
> (We’ve seriously lost a great deal of momentum since this procedure was
> enacted, for proof compare the posting totals between years 2000 and 2001)
> http://news.lugnet.com/people/?n=1396 (2900 posters in 2000)
> http://news.lugnet.com/people/?n=2817 (2298 posters in 2001)
> http://news.lugnet.com/people/?n=2818
Is there evidence that the verification is the cause of the change in
totals? Are there other possible reasons? Have they been ruled out? Could
it be that the 'luster' of Lugnet as a new thing has faded and only the
die-hards post a lot now? Could it be that newer forums that were not
around before now attract some people away from Lugnet?
> Flashback:
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> In times-past, there were certain individuals who caused flame-wars, stole
> identities, and trolled news groups.
> (They’ve long since vanished…but we’re still in ‘lock-down’ mode!)
As I understand it, at least one of the individuals who stole an identity is
still actively posting on Lugnet, having apologized profusely, and having
argued he did it only to prove the point that it could be done. But my
point is that they are not necessarily 'long since vanished'.
> Flash-forward:
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> But this is the present!
> Suz has cunningly chosen to delegate the powers of responsibility to individual
> news group moderators. (therein, we are better able to manage our groups
> affairs.)
>
> With this balance of power, the curators/creators of Lugnet need no longer
> read and scrutinize each post for possible problems.
All true. As a new curator myself, I do like that curators can keep an eye
on things for Todd and Suz. Although I am not aware of being able to police
posts with anything more than a counter post that says, "Don't do that,
slap!" As curator, I don't know of any means of actually stopping or
deleting unwanted posts (of course I am new at the job, so maybe that is
available to me?).
> That is why I believe _NOW_ is the time to allow greater posting freedoms…
> …like before…when idle chat was the norm and the free-flow of ideas wasn’t
> limited to how many times you wanted to check your e-mail account.
>
> What I hope to accomplish twofold:
> Initially I'd really like to here what others think.
> And secondly, if a concession should be reached we create a change for the
> BETTER!
Again, I use the web interface, which could explain why I fail to see the
need for this particular change. I could be persuaded to agree with you,
given more facts, but currently I am not in full agreement as to whether
this issue is so severe.
> I appreciate y’all taking the time to listen to my ideas,
Absolutely! :) Sharing ideas like this is how these communities develop
and grow! Thanks for putting this out there...
-Hendo
|
|
Message has 6 Replies:
 | | Re: A Change
|
| (...) You forget those who still use dial-up to read/write to Lugnet. They prefer to use the news reader so they can dial-up, download all new news, disconnect, read and answer, dial-up, send new items. And I think it's something more people should (...) (22 years ago, 9-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.people, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.curators)
| | | Re: A Change
|
| Hendo (John P. Henderson) wrote in message ... (...) Yes, email verification is required for members too, when not using the web interface. For me, the Web interface is a health issue. With RSI in both hands and arms, a newsreader is orders of (...) (22 years ago, 9-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.people, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.curators)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | A Change
|
| .A Change ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ (Not so much a` BIG change, but a `SMALL improvement!) !An open letter to the Lugnet community and it’s creators: I'm proposing that a change take place in our lovely Lugnet community. Not a radical revolution, but simply just a (...) (22 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.people, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.curators, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.announce)
|
53 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
