Subject:
|
Re: Lugnet clone handling? (was: Re: LEGO clone auction)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 28 Mar 1999 22:22:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1315 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, c576653@cclabs.missouri.edu (Christopher L. Weeks)
writes:
> Mike Stanley wrote:
> > Christopher L. Weeks:
> > > 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.
Sometimes patterns of posting emerge that weren't clear earlier, and
sometimes things just reach some threshold. In the case of clones, for
example, it was believed (by me, mostly) that people just wouldn't want to
talk about clones at all -- since so many people passionately dislike them.
It didn't seem necessary at the outset ever to speak up about clones -- but
when someone asked about posting reviews of clone sets to the .reviews group
-- that was definitely crossing a threshold -- it was clear that people were
coming to the groups with differing expectations.
> 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.
That's the whole trick, isn't it. :) "Rules" are too specific and too hard
to enumerate all of them, and guidelines are open to a bit too much
interpretation sometimes...it's a real challenge to find the right balance.
(And I'm not implying that the right balance has been found yet with
respect to the rules/guidelines that are current set forth.)
> Right now it's looking like group lugnet.x is for the discussion of Lego
> brand interlocking blocks,
What do you think that 'l' in lugnet stands for?
> oh and shirts for people who use the group,
The shirts Larry was talking about were related to LEGO.
> and mostly we'll tolerate slightly off-topic posting,
Being slightly off-topic is within the Terms of Use at
http://www.lugnet.com/terms/
> but we also reserve the right to jump your case for being off-topic,
Any instances I've noticed of anyone jumping on someone else's case for
being off-topic was after they did it a couple times, or when they'd clearly
ignored the rules about not posting auction announcements/updates in non-
auction groups.
> and in no
> circumstances should you ever mention some other brand of interlocking
> block unless you're being derisive.
Hmm, where did that come from? Something I said?
When I wrote
"I always just figured that clone brands wouldn't come up here -- except
in pejorative contexts -- because almost all LEGO® fans tend to be
purists. But if there is a desire for people to share information about
clone brands in the groups here, then I think it would be best to create
a separate area to gobble up these unwanted discussions -- just like the
other areas (.debate, .fun, .test) of the .off-topic hierarchy."
in
http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.reviews:92
it was meant pretty literally...that is, "I always figured" meant "I always
figured." And
"What we don't want to happen is the .reviews group being used to review
individual sets from clone brands like Mega-Bloks, Best-Lock, etc.
(Blyecch, poison!)"
is likewise pretty literal -- mentions of other brands in the .reviews group
is definitely unwanted.
But in general (in terms of the whole of the site) it's -never- been a rule
or mandate that people never ever mention other brands, even if they're not
being derisive. In fact, mentions of other brands in .off-topic.fun (before
.off-topic.clone-brands was created) would always have been welcome.
So I hope that clarifies what I wrote on March 3 -- it's a lot of simply
personal views there.
If you're speaking more toward the general community views -- it should come
as no surprise that LEGO fans tend (mostly) to speak of clone brands in
derisive or pejorative terms, given the quality differences.
> 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.
I'm no psychologist, but I think it's a boundary thing. When LEGO fans
deride other brands, they're erecting boundaries to keep themselves isolated
from the poisons of other brands.
> 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."
This is what point #12 of the Discussion Group Terms and Conditions tries to
cover:
DISCUSSION GROUP TERMS AND CONDITIONS
LUGNET includes discussion groups which allow feedback and
interaction between users. LUGNET and its owners and/or operators
do not control or censor messages, information, or files delivered
to discussion groups. It is a condition of your use of the
discussion groups that you do not:
[...]
12. Stray hopelessly off-topic without moving the discussion to a
more appropriate location. (There is a fair amount of leeway
here, since it is natural for discussions to drift, and moving
a discussion can sometimes be inconvenient or difficult. If in
doubt, appeal to common sense.)
Note the fuzzy modifiers "hopelessly" and "a fair amount of leeway" as well
as the phrases "without moving" and "sometimes...inconvenient."
> 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.
Chris, could you clarify that last sentence? By "actually aren't," do you
mean "actually aren't improvements" or "actually aren't made?" In either
case, what suggested changes might you have for the Terms and Conditions to
better (i.e., more accurately) convey the actual "way of things"?
> Hopefully I didn't ramble too much to follow.
Thank you for rambling at all (and more is always welcome). It takes guts
to bring up an issue like this.
--Todd
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
