| |
In lugnet.castle.org, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.castle.org, Frank Filz writes:
> > Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > >
> > > In lugnet.admin.general, Frank Filz writes:
> > > > I'm wondering if lugnet.castle.org should be made into a non-postable
> > > > group. It seems to sport occasional Castle World postings which really
> > > > don't belong since lugnet.castle.org.cw exists, and not much else.
> > > >
> > > > Frank "compartmentalized dork" Filz
> > >
> > > Once it went non postable, where would discussion of a competing (to CW)
> > > group and its early formative stage posts themselves go (prior to it getting
> > > its own castle.org.subgroup), should such arise?
> > >
> > > Mostly rhetorical, CW presumably has first mover. One COULD, however,
> > > contemplate a group with a radically different charter though
> > > (hyperrealistic modeling of real world castles and trappings rather than the
> > > fantasy storylineish bent of CW)...
> >
> > I agree that there's certainly room for more .castle.orgs. My suggestion
> > is that the point at which someone wants to start such a suggestion,
> > they just ask for lugnet.castle.org to open for posting again.
>
> Check. Much hassle to flip on and off, ne? Would just getting more serious
> about gently guiding misposts EACH time you see them help?
That tends to provoke cries of "who are you, the LUGNET police?"
and "why can't I, I'm just as right as you" (or "I wanted to post
my sale announcement here because I didn't get any traffic from
b-s-t"). Then we get the obligatory "Is LUGNET becoming uncivil?"
thread, yadda yadda. I'm all for providing gentle correction,
but coming off as a pretentious heavy isn't really something I
enjoy.
Maybe we need a system of forum deputies? Perhaps the curators'
duties ought to include that (if they don't already)? It seems
that the criteria for awarding curatorship are in good agreement
with the qualities of those who understand proper posting.
> > The other option perhaps is to just get real serious about asking people
> > to post properly. Things seem to be getting pretty slipshod.
>
> I thought they were tending towards better (although just a slight tend) at
> least in the last few weeks. No?
An outsider's viewpoint on .castle.org: I looked at it as a smaller
"in-group," much like .pirates (which suffers a large percentage of
mildly off-topic or questionable posts, perhaps), or .loc.au/.org.au,
and so I didn't really see it as a problem. If a significant portion
of the membership has an issue with that and demands enforcement of
topic faithfulness, then that's different. How OT were some of these
posts in question?
> > Some pet peeves of mine:
> >
> > lugnet.general
> >
> > posting to one group with follow-ups to another (if the post belongs in
> > either place at all, it certainly can be in both places initially - this
> > especially applies to the lugnet.announce hierarchy. If you just post
> > your castle creation to lugnet.announce.moc, I may or may not see it,
> > and when I get back to updating my links pages, your creation might not
> > get linked if I didn't happen to leave one of the replies "unread").
>
> Ya, this one bugs me too. One needs to XFUT not just FUT or the context
> chain is fragmented for the FUTed group readers.
I agree. This post will be XFUT -> .admin.general.
> <snip>
>
> > lugnet.trains.org has some discussion which really belongs in
> > lugnet.trains. Keep lugnet.trains.org for discussion of new groups, and
> > announcement of shows, and announcement of picture galleries from shows
> > and the like (though the picture galleries should be cross-posted to
> > lugnet.trains with follow-ups set there). Of course that's my own
> > selfish desires...
>
> Send me a few links off line that illustrate this one will you? I'm AOK with
> being a bit stronger on that particular point in that particular hierarchy...
Ditto (and as above). But in the case of subordinate .org groups,
like trains.org and castle.org, the lines are a *lot* less clear
than between some other groups. Gentle correction from the curator-
ship would be my vote, but using the carrot (make sure we see your
creations in the audited place) rather than the stick (if you're a
misplaced-poster, you're Hitler's evil twin [1]).
best
LFB
[1] Yes, I know how little sense that makes.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Use of lugnet.castle.org
|
| (...) Check. Much hassle to flip on and off, ne? Would just getting more serious about gently guiding misposts EACH time you see them help? (...) I thought they were tending towards better (although just a slight tend) at least in the last few (...) (23 years ago, 10-Feb-02, to lugnet.castle.org, lugnet.admin.general)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
