 | | Re: Porthole alternative —Kyle Beatty
|
| | | (...) Your points are well-taken, but even as someone who hasn't had opportunity to be corrected, I get the distinct feeling that the playground isn't really all that open or fun. It doesn't take very many well-intentioned shots across too many (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Porthole alternative —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | Why am I still up? Working on NILTC stuff for this weekend. Burning the candle at both ends again... :-\ "Kyle Beatty" <carbunicle@appleogue.net> wrote in message news:GsA9p0.9I1@lugnet.com... (...) I think people choose for themselves not to allow (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Porthole alternative —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) I have a higher regard for the intellect of those who have expressed a view on this. This is about what is best for this community - not branding. Scott A =+= Have you inspected Arthur’s Seat yet? (URL) reasonable man adapts himself to suit (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Porthole alternative —Frank Filz
|
| | | | (...) I certainly agree that there seems to be a lot more "correction" and related noise. I think there are a few problems here. - The Lugnet admins have not had a lot of time recently to do the administrative stuff they used to do. This has (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Porthole alternative —David Koudys
|
| | | | | In lugnet.admin.general, Frank Filz writes: <snip 'cause I had to, not that I wanted to> (...) This is definitly 'big picture'!! Nicely said and done, Frank! Dave (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Porthole alternative —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Do you think that if “the admins” were still playing the role they used to here they would be stepping in and “correcting” quite as much? I worry about the *potential* for Todd’s apparent inactively to be used as an excuse to throw a little (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Porthole alternative —Duane Hess
|
| | | | (...) <snip> (...) If the admins were correcting as often as the "community" has been of late, I think it would be in such a way as to avoid the noise of our current method. I don't mind the community action. What I *do* mind is the fallout created (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Porthole alternative —David Koudys
|
| | | | (...) Wasn't he way ahead of his time?? (...) Few minor issues, no need to get someone's knickers in a knot over. Just maybe rethinking certain things. (...) I appreciate the work the LUGNET admins do for all of us. Just wanted to say that here. Why (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Porthole alternative —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | In lugnet.admin.general, David Koudys writes: <snip> (...) Nope. There are at least two issues here with the original post, its followup, and the responses. It is useful to keep them separate and many in this thread have but not all. 1. Was the (...) (23 years ago, 2-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | RE: Porthole alternative —Bram Lambrecht
|
| | | | | (...) I do not think guidance is inappropriate. I think dragging guidance out to more than 1 or 2 posts to the point where it becomes a huge argument is inappropriate. (...) My reply was obviously misunderstood...I did not mean "yelling" literally. (...) (23 years ago, 2-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Porthole alternative —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) There is NO reason for a rebuttal to guidance, ever, unless you think there's an issue with the guidance. The proper response to guidance, *unless you think there is an issue* is "thanks, I'll keep that in mind". Nothing else. See Shiri's post (...) (23 years ago, 2-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Porthole alternative —Matt Hein
|
| | | | | | | Don't you think its amazing how one post on portholes can turn into a full fledged flame war? Well, maybe they should create a lugnet newsgroup called lugnet.off-topic.post-wars IMO <<_Matt Hein_>> Lugnet member No. 1112 (23 years ago, 2-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Flaming about guidance given —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) and an off topic follow up, one out of many that were ON topic... (...) I agree. If you're actually concerned about flame wars though, ask yourself who is doing the flaming and who is merely defending their actions in support of what the bulk (...) (23 years ago, 3-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Flaming about guidance given —Matt Hein
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Yeah, I agree on that one. I would rather have a discussion without the arguements, so I can have peace of mind, cuz right now, this has nothing to do with portholes. (...) Pointless, yes. Tiresome? Definitely. I've had my say on this (...) (23 years ago, 3-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Flaming about guidance given —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I'll connect the dots here, to make it as clear and concise as possible. The topic, in this specific case, was when should issues such as this get bumped to .admin. My issue had *nothing* to do with gentle guidance. I've said it before and (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Flaming about guidance given —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | | In lugnet.admin.general, David Koudys writes: <snip> (...) NM above stuff, for Larry posted an awesome response here: (URL) please disregard Daveisms above. Dave (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Porthole alternative —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | I'm disagreeing with Larry here on some specific points, but I hope it's clear that at root, I agree with his stance on community guidance. It's something we need, even if our process needs refinement... (...) Larry, he was originally being friendly (...) (23 years ago, 3-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Meta discussion about guidance —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Rather than my usual intersperse, I'll just provide my current thoughts on the subject. I sort of disagree that there is no difference between guidance and discussion of guidance. Basically I think there's a point at where things have veered (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Meta discussion about guidance —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | (...) Absolutely. Consensus arrives by discussion and that should not be done in a theme group. (...) This is a very good idea. New admin group for discussion of policies and principles, where .admin.general posts concerning the 'hashing' out of (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Meta discussion about guidance —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | Rearranging with no intent to harm: (...) OK. I think I agree with you because the issue of keeping the NG 'clean' is the motivation - as long as a dissenting opinion is encouraged to follow the guidance off-group eventually. (...) Great. I think (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Meta discussion about guidance —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | Just closing one particular loop: (...) Quoting from the post sending it here: "Unless you think you get a special pass on this for some reason. Take it up with the admins since my guidance has failed." This was VERY poorly worded on my part. It (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Meta discussion about guidance —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | (...) The first bit of guidance, 'That reply (or topic) is off-topic for this newsgroup. Perhaps this thread should be taken elsewhere (or to specific group) for further discussion.' I feel we don't need a disclaimer for the first guiding post. In (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Meta discussion about guidance —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | (...) First of all, I think that no followup would be needed most of the time because consensus would typically agree with the original guidance provider. I think. Then, if the followup note had FUT set back to xxx then even if there was resultant (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Meta discussion about guidance —William R. Ward
|
| | | | | | (...) No human endeavor calls for more tact than telling someone they've done wrong. The flak you get over being a net.cop probably stems more from this than from any other apsect of the situation. In the vast majority of cases, people believe they (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Porthole alternative —Kyle Beatty
|
| | | | In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) This is the sort of talk that makes me think that maybe there's no point in posting anything. (...) Yes, the discussion about the correction/rebuttal should excuse itself from the (...) (23 years ago, 2-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
