 | | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Well, my post seems to have shut down some of the pointless shouting, and there seems to be some interesting debate starting to creep from under the rocks it dove for cover behind... I'm still going to let it chill for a while and see if this (...) (26 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I assume you mean "informally" in that for example, Frank sends me a note telling me to cool it... or vice versa. (because if you mean formally we're back to a moderator/council/review thingie) I think that's a good idea. More... I think it (...) (26 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Well, I just went through the 24 posts that make up this thread at the time that I noticed it. Hmmm. I've been disappointed with the debates of late too, and maybe I'm partly to blame, but I think it's really only the past couple months that (...) (26 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) (nitpick) Some christians. I'm not preaching, and I can't be the only christian who's stearing clear. (...) I'm not sure if I'm one of the folks you're talking about, but I've certainly dropped .debate from my reading. It's gone way downhill (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Hmm. Something that I've noticed for a while not, but not cared enough to mention before this is... The skip filter only works on the highest level, and goes away as soon as I drill down into a sup-group. (ie: I have .debate filtered out, but (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Ya, the default is to omit .off-topic and .admin noise: (URL) and limiting .debate posts from showing in any search (except explicitly (...) That would be a bit trickier but might come almost for free since it already filters out groups not in (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Thanks for the restate. Yes, coughcough was just who I was referring to. Restated that way, I agree 100%. ++Lar (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Well that could be handled by having two groups. One for conducting auction business (soliciting bids) and one for asking questions about auctions. Then you just TOS quickly anyone who regularly manages to "announce" their auction in the Q&A (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) they (...) Mmm. That'll teach me to go around not qualifying my statements. Clearly, I don't think that the rules should be mutated too much to encourage everyone (coughMatthewMoultoncough) to join up- on the other hand, if subtle changes to (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I agree, I'd be sad to see it go. But what I'm really sad is that as far as I'm concerned, it's gone now. A year ago I really enjoyed .debate. The past few months, the time for a thread to deteriorate into one of the two recurring shouting (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
