Subject:
|
Re: Porthole alternative
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Mar 2002 21:11:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
809 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Duane Hess writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Frank Filz writes:
> > > Kyle Beatty wrote: • <snip>
> > > >
> > > > Characterizing unhappy responses to correction as being inherently
> > > > anti-Lugnet is dangerous. (By the way, every time I use this expression,
> > > > "correction," the hair on the back of my neck stands up. It really creeps >>> me out in a deeply Orwellian way.)
Wasn't he way ahead of his time??
> > >
> > > I certainly agree that there seems to be a lot more "correction" and
> > > related noise. I think there are a few problems here.
Few minor issues, no need to get someone's knickers in a knot over. Just
maybe rethinking certain things.
> > > - The Lugnet admins have not had a lot of time recently to do the
> > > administrative stuff they used to do.
I appreciate the work the LUGNET admins do for all of us. Just wanted to
say that here. Why should they get bogged down in this stuff? Small cp or
cg (for community guidance) can do the job, if *all* people are on the same
page.
> >
> > 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 weight around. Perhaps I'm worrying about nothing?
Personally, I didn't consider any part of this particular thread as people
throwing their weight around. It's all about coming to a better
understanding of how to better the LUGNET community. Discussion is good.
For those that are blessed with the ability to raise the bar on discussion,
all the more power to them.
> 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 when someone is corrected. Just look at this thread as one example.
Each 'fallout' is different. There has been many times when I have
appreciated the guidance given in LUGNET groups by those 'in the know', and
wondered why others had issues with said guidance. This is not one of those
times ;)
> I think you do have a valid concern about members taking on the
> responsibility of corrective action without support and/or approval of the
> admins. I see a zero tolerance policy developing by precedence. I feel that
> the speed of the thread elevation (to lugnet.admin.*) is an indicator of
> such a policy.
This was my exact original point. Sometimes I will learn how to phrase
myself better to get my ideas and/or issues across.
> >
> > We have to live with the fact that policing is here to stay. It should be
> > done with respect, and it should be remembered that respect is a two way >street.
Point #2, and I will pull in a quote from someone better 'in the know'...
Quoteth Tim
"
If people accepted correction graciously, like people on LUGNET used to, and
didn't carry the attitude that this is their own personal playground, and if
everyone shared the burden of keeping each other in check versus staying
silent and leaving it to a few, we wouldn't be dealing with this, would we?
-Tim
"
My original intent was to politely point out that mayhaps the issue was
bumped too quickly, and that, mayhaps, the bumper should re-evaluate his
position. No personal disrespect, no slamming, no flame wars, just have
another look-see. As Tim would also say, the ruckus that ensues from such
correction/guidance is not the responsibility of the corrector(guider,
whatever), but from the folks who dislike the guidance. This is how this
particular issue got this big.
>
> I think the tone with which a corrective action is written, sets the tone
> for any replies.
That's why I like keeping my posts vaguely humourous, but, as Natalie Hurley
(Sports Night) would say, "My sense of humour is too advanced and
avant-garde for mere members of the public to appreciate" Oh well ;)
> >
> > Scott A
> >
> > =+=
> > Have you inspected Arthur’s Seat yet?
> > http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=scotta
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> So, does this mean that all of your posts including this sig need to be
> confined to .market? Where's the line drawn?
Yes, we should start cross-posting this to .market.
> <snip>
>
> -Duane
Now can I say that this issue has been somewhat resolved to the betterment
of LUGNET in general? It has for me, anyway.
<Everyone takes a deep, cleansing breath, and lets it out, slooooowly...>
Whew!
Dave
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
39 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
