Subject:
|
Re: Meta discussion about guidance
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:24:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1109 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Just closing one particular loop:
>
> In lugnet.admin.general, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
>
> > Good point. Part of this fracas was based on the understanding that you were
> > appealing to authority for something seen to be minor. And you seem to have
> > meant to be just moving the venue to a more appropriate place.
>
> 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 really does read like I'm calling
> in the muscle. And that was wrong and regrettable. It wasn't what I was
> trying to do.
>
> Clearly, I do need some help on wording.
>
> Do we need a disclaimer on *every* bit of guidance something of the form "if
> you think this guidance needs to be discussed or modified, FUT to xxx (where
> xxx currently is admin.general but maybe is some other group at someother
> point) and any consensus or change will be summarized back to this theme group"?
>
> I dunno.
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 this
particular instance, the exact wording of Larry's first guiding post was
exemplary-- professional and not harsh. If the off-topic responses persist,
then reinforce the idea that the thread is clearly off-topic for the
newsgroup. Also put across the idea that further discussions ensueing from
the guidance, or the off-topic postings, should clearly be taken to
.admin.general (until such time as new admin group for these specific
issues). This way the newsgroup doesn't get swamped with a huge discussion
of what's right or wrong posting for the newsgroup, for that's definitly not
on-topic with the newsgroup.
Poster 1 - "Hey, here's my posting for how to build a pirate ship" posted in
.rcx.nqcc
Gentle guidance - "This post is off-topic for the rcx.nqcc newsgroup.
Perhaps .pirates is a better locale to hold such a thread."
Poster 1 - "But I'm talking about LEGO so I should be able to post here."
Gentle guidance - "This newsgroup is for discussing the specifics of NQCC
and RCX's. (quoteth Larry) if you think this guidance needs to be discussed
or modified, FUT to xxx (where xxx currently is admin.general but maybe is
some other group at someother point). As well, please see policy xxxx or
the specific section of the user agreement concerning this issue."
Poster 1 - "I wanna talk pirates in this newsgroup!"
Then admins should get involved, or some other resolution.
If we bring back the consensus to the newsgroup, would that be better or
not? Would that help or just restart the discussion? I'll bow to smarter
people than me on that one.
Dave
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
