Subject:
|
Re: Lugnet clone handling? (was: Re: LEGO clone auction)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 Mar 1999 18:26:06 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
c576653@cclabsANTISPAM.missouri.edu
|
Viewed:
|
1485 times
|
| |
|
|
Mike Stanley wrote:
>
> Christopher L. Weeks <c576653@cclabs.missouri.edu> wrote:
> > I don't follow the philosophy behind excluding anything clone from the
> > normal hierarchy of groups. It seems like everything would be easier if
> > the charters were taken a little loosely and only when someone was being
> > problematically off-topic would they be pushed off to post somewhere
> > else. Really, I think the names of the groups are good enough
> > indicators of what's supposed to be there and the topics discussed
> > (maybe with a few groups as exceptions) should be (and will be, anyway)
> > a little fuzzy but centered on the intended topic.
> >
> > If there is a good argument for why I'm wrong (I mean better than "this
> > is owned by Todd and Suzanne and they can do whatever they want" - which
> > I agree with totally) I would appreciate hearing it.
>
> Hrmmm, I don't _have_ children, but I remember being one. I also
> remember times when rules seemed to be loosely (or not at all) applied
> at one time, then harshly applied at others. Didn't make sense to me
> then, don't think it would work now.
>
> I don't really think you can, in good fath, tell someone to post
> whatever someplace else just because he's doing a lot of it, when
> you've tolerated it before, either from him or someone else on a less
> frequent basis.
I think this is a reasonable answer. Like you, I continue to be
frustrated by incidents of differential discipline. However, as a
manager of people, and a parent, it has proven - time and again - more
reasonable to set up guidelines rather than trying to account for every
little specific detail.
Right now it's looking like group lugnet.x is for the discussion of Lego
brand interlocking blocks, oh and shirts for people who use the group,
and mostly we'll tolerate slightly off-topic posting, but we also
reserve the right to jump your case for being off-topic, and in no
circumstances should you ever mention some other brand of interlocking
block unless you're being derisive.
1) If it's going to be specific, there needs to be lots and lots more
specific conditions listed than the ones that I listed above.
2) It seems a bit queer that as an online community we're mostly about
'good' sorts of community-building, friendship, encouragement, learning
how to get along, talking out differences of opinion, sharing, etc. but
we (not I, but some) seem to encourage derision and divisiveness over
the issue of which brand of interlocking block we like (or can afford)
to play with.
As to your second paragraph, why not? If you (well, Todd) owns the
place, why not set up a rule like "try to stay on-topic, part of the
goal here is to provide more specific _on-topic_ discussion forums, if
you stray too far, or are persistent, you will be moved, or in extreme
cases disciplined." Is the worry that whoever admin's such a policy
would act with caprice? This is the reality of how the world works, and
it's OK. I'm not arguing for the status quo when improvements can be
made, but I think some improvements actually aren't.
Hopefully I didn't ramble too much to follow.
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
35 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
|
|
|
|
