 | | Re: New group suggestion
|
|
(...) I agree that bst is not really the right place for the DYA announcements. (...) I think putting the DYA announcements in their own group may just end up with people re-announcing them to shopping. I personally don't want to have to follow (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New group suggestion
|
|
(...) At this point, I'm thinking of a place for Emmanuel to post his DYA announcements. Going a bit more extreme, if Wal*Mart wanted to start posting their LEGO specials on LUGNET, I think that would be great. But I wouldn't want these (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) Well it could take a while-my dads confirmed that he's getting a digicam-only hasn't said when. I'm also gonna be tied up cleaning up a pristine but dusty (ambiguity alert) 5590 which a bouch from a friend @ school-its model team but it was (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.castle)
|
| |
| | Re: Groups for years (was: Re: New group suggestion)
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) make (...) buy (...) want (...) product (...) Sounds like a winner to me. We can slowly backfill the older groups with interesting tidbits. This would be a great place to share things like minor set variations (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images)
|
|
(...) Ok. Looks like it was me who misunderstood. :) I guess I'm just coming at this from a perspective of "why vote if we don't have to?" The .council group is an open forum, so everyone is still able to bring an opinion forward; IMHO, Todd's just (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images)
|
|
(...) I think that may have been a misunderstanding though - the thread was trying to nominate someone who would recieve ideas on what the council should do, how it should work, how it should be planned. But I agree - things are moving fast - the (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.council)
|
| |
| | Re: Track Designer newsgroup?
|
|
Yea.. I'm looking for help in designing my layout. I have some test files done but I would like to get more input.. THanks Jim (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images)
|
|
James Brown <galliard@shades-of-night.com> wrote in article <FqB9J7.Hos@lugnet.com>... (...) in (...) want (...) which (...) their (...) nomination (...) the (...) are (...) I caught your point entirely. I've cut our conversation from above and (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images)
|
|
(...) Think of it as an external 'nother brain (this time a collective one) making recommendations taken very seriously rather than purely acting on behalf of. Think of it as what happens in a corporation or organization when someone is hired to (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images)
|
|
(...) Well, they can. But why? More on this below... (...) Hmm. I think you missed the gist of my point. People who want to do it are not necessarily the same people that Todd & Suzanne want doing, or are comfortable working with. (...) I'm not (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Cookie Short-Cut
|
|
Todd, is there any way to re-obtain the cookie with our posting information besides re-registering? If there were some automated way to do it, it might cut down on your mail and administrative duties. :) (I am sure that would be a good thing) If I (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Track Designer newsgroup?
|
|
I'm surprised this hasn't come up before. What I think is needed is a group for exchange of files similar to the dat newsgroups and a group for further development etc. Maybe with such low traffic they may be one group to start with. Just a thought. (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images)
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in article <38B07471.4ED1A93E@v...er.net>... (...) Ummmmm...... isn't 'appointing' a council somewhat contrary to the way that Todd has always run LUGNET? (at least so far as I've seen in the last year+) It (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Self Organization (was Re: Self Organisation
|
|
(...) Well I *did* say "most". :-) But yes, I consider myself highly regarded by at least one member of the community. Me. FUT off-topic.fun (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.council, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images)
|
|
(...) that (...) base (...) to (...) I did not mean to infer, but I did assume it to be the case. (...) You include yourself in this? :-) I must admit, I find this whole development rather interesting. I anticipate that, if LUGNet continues to grow, (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.council)
|
| |
| | Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images)
|
|
(...) Good point. If you infer that I was invited you would be correct... It's not my place to reveal who else Todd invited, it's Todd's, so you'll have to take my word for this, but I do know who he invited, at least in the first round, and I would (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.council)
|
| |
| | Re: New group suggestion
|
|
(...) Hmm, that's a very interesting example -- totally perfect for .buy-sell-trade as is, but (if there were a .shopping.hot group or somesuch) possibly borderline between that and .b-s-t (although .b-s-t would still certainly be perfectly fine). (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: About auctions and newsgroups
|
|
(...) Ya, discussion was always meant to fall under analysis. I'm not sure what kind of auction discussions aren't analytical of the auctions, but I suppose it should be added just for clarity's sake. OK, it now says: lugnet.market.auction - Auction (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | About auctions and newsgroups
|
|
The current running topic (generally referred to as 'what to do about auctions') got me to thinking. Most of the controversy has to do with misposted auction announcements. Those seem to fall into two types. One where the poster put it the wrong (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New group suggestion
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote: <snip> (...) Another example would be my post about the stack of Belville 5870s I found (URL). I put it in market.b-s-t because I was pretty sure that I would be selling them. I believe that this one would meet the 'extremely (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
