 | | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images)
|
|
James Brown <galliard@shades-of-night.com> wrote in article <FqB4M3.KH4@lugnet.com>... (...) suggesting (...) be (...) become (...) to (...) still (...) I've (...) easy (...) blatantly, (...) job, (...) Well, using that logic, if the best person (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New group suggestion
|
|
(...) That's a good point. Where I was going with this is that by encouraging people to post when and where they find old sets or significantly discounted sets it would make it easier for others to find the same. However, I think the above example (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Can this possibly be worth the opening amount ?
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) have (...) whole (...) True, of course to some extent, I was just pulling your leg. It does point out though that many posts operate on several layers, and it can be hard to pick the best group for the post. I (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Can this possibly be worth the opening amount ?
|
|
(...) I dunno...depends on what (if any) other stuff comes up. Discussion of extra details of the auction (the "information holes" I was referring to), I'd put those in .auction. Discussion of whether to sell a collection whole or in parts, I'd put (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Can this possibly be worth the opening amount ?
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) depend (...) selling (...) work (...) Hmm, per recent discussion on guidelines, wouldn't lugnet.market.theory have been better? Thinking more on the lines of where market discussions should happen, someone who (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Groups for years (was: Re: New group suggestion)
|
|
(...) Well, groups do stick around, so the 'new' designator wouldn't be fitting after a certain point. I was thinking if ever there were groups for product line years, they oughtta parallel the DB, since this'll be set up for browsing by year anyway (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New group suggestion
|
|
(...) Well, yah, hmm, that's a good point. Who's gonna flog a crummy deal in .shopping? OTOH, .shopping was also set up for discussing any old retail experience -- i.e, anything from FOTW's to GOOB's to ragging on FAOS's alleged high pricing or (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
James Brown wrote in message ... (...) be (...) allowing (...) and (...) mostly (...) the (...) in (...) provide (...) I happen to agree. In fact, if OBO's become relegated to lugnet.market.auction, then the only things which would be acceptable (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images)
|
|
(...) On a hunch: It's because, especially in a small community (which Lugnet still is), democracy doesn't necessarily bring the best people to the table. I've worked with a number of small special interest groups(1), and it's very easy for an (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) Ok ok ok wait wait stop. I *don't* think that SBA's should be allowed in .buy-sell-trade. What I've always been trying to say is that an SBA is mathematically equivalent to a plain old regular OBO sale. In other words, SBA's that are conducted (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New group suggestion
|
|
It seems to me that a new group for hot availability items (good price, unusual offering, etc) is not really necessary. It seems to me that that is the purpose of shopping. Of course a cross post to buy-sell-trade that a particular person is willing (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) I personally think that SBA's are enough of an auction that they shouldn't be in .BST. However, I've sort-of come around to agreeing with Todd on allowing them there, for a couple of reasons. First being that there really isn't a sufficient (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images)
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) delicate (...) large (...) forth (...) citizen (...) I think Allan was suggesting voting on who the council members were. This might be reasonable, but perhaps is best handled the way many organizations handle (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images)
|
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in article <FqB237.Aqu@lugnet.com>... (...) that (...) way (...) something (...) also (...) Ooops, I guess I should have been a bit more clear in my questioning. I meant that it seems as though the selection (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
Lorbaat wrote in message ... (...) that (...) itself (...) difference, (...) auction (...) the (...) Well, if you bid, you generally get zero (if your offer wasn't good enough) or one update notice. Either an outbid notice or a "you won" notice. (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images)
|
|
(...) Whoops, that probably sounds contradictory. What I mean is that stuff should IMHO be discussed openly in the .admin.council group -- there shouldn't be any hush-hush secret stuff going on in the background. If something's being discussed (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cookie Short-Cut
|
|
Thanks Todd. I'll go ahead and just re-setup myself. I was just trying to avoid bugging you, if possible. (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images)
|
|
(...) No, it's not intended to be a private council, unless someone takes something off-line personally on their own accord unofficially. Anyone is still also welcome to participate in the discussions (offering opinions, raising concerns, making (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cookie Short-Cut
|
|
(...) I think that is the only way just now, maybe if posting confirmation was hooked into the membership cookie then that would cut down some of the need to re-register.. Maybe having to verify requests for posting privelidges is the safest way to (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cookie Short-Cut
|
|
(...) When someone fills out the news-posting setup form a second time with the same information, it's not really a drag on the pass-through process -- those events just show up as "oh, btw, this happened" but not as to-do's requiring attention. (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
