Subject:
|
Re: Porthole alternative
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 2 Mar 2002 01:49:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
722 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, David Koudys writes:
<snip>
> 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.
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 followup post, which contained *purely* market related material
(NOT a sig, we by convention allow those) off topic for trains such that it
should not be posted there, within the context of what seems to be the
defacto current tolerance level. I think so. As evidence, I would offer this
post:
http://news.lugnet.com/castle/?n=12413
which suggests that a post about something someone saw on bricklink that
isn't even theirs isn't necessarily good form for .castle.
Now, one could debate the larger issue of whether that's the correct line or
not. But I submit that it *is what it is* currently. I personally would
favor a LOT of softening on that. But as long as *I* am going to be held to
that standard (and I am darn sure there are twits out there watching to see
if I slip up, cf those who apparently count whether I use TM every time or
not) I am darn well going to expect others to hue the same line.
Someone said we seem to be getting into a defacto zero tolerance regime. If
we are arbitrarily sometimes zero tolerance and sometimes "anything goes"
because of whatever reason, I would say that's really really bad. Worse than
either consistently loose or consistently strict. I'm not sure we are at
that point but I'm scared we might be.
I'm open to discussion on what the tolerance level ought to be. I like it
the way it was back in the early days. Pretty low in general for
misbehaviour but somewhat tolerant of running jokes and the like. But please
don't have that discussion in THIS thread, consider having it in another thread.
2. Was the guidance given graciously accepted, and if it wasn't, was the
point in time it was bucked up to here too early, about right, or too late?
First, I would say that the guidance (which most acknowledge was extremely
polite and gentle) given by me was NOT graciously accepted... and
surprisingly, at least to me, Bram has subsequently said he's not on board
with the notion that guidance is appropriate. That's scary.
As soon as someone says "you're yelling at me" that's being ungracious as
far as I am concerned.
I don't consider that a debatable point either, really.
That said, I admit that an argument could be made that I should have waited
a few more cycles before bucking it to here. But I decided, rightly or
wrongly, that I was going to do my darndest to keep a brawl out of
.trains.... it has a LOT of newbies in it right now, and is high traffic enough.
If someone has CONSTRUCTIVE discussion about how many cycles of "did too/did
not" is appropriate, I'm all ears. I thought 1 cycle was plenty. Maybe I'm
wrong. Convince me if you like, or not, as you choose.
But several posters in this thread may well be up to their old tricks of
carping at me as they always do. They may be a bit more veiled about it, but
carping they are. Those carpers, and their posts, can go to /dev/null for
all I care.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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. (...) (22 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 (...) (22 years ago, 2-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (22 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
|
|
|
|
