 | | 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 (...) (22 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 (...) (22 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 (...) (22 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 (...) (22 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 (...) (22 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
