 | | Re: Porthole alternative
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) <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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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)
|
| |
| | Re: Porthole alternative
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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: Porthole alternative
|
|
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)
|
| |
| | Re: Flaming about guidance given
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Meta discussion about guidance
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
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: Flaming about guidance given
|
|
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: Meta discussion about guidance
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
