Subject:
|
Re: Lugnet clone handling? (was: Re: LEGO clone auction)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 29 Mar 1999 15:26:20 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
c576653@cclabs*IHateSpam*.missouri.edu
|
Viewed:
|
2063 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote:
>
> > 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?
Sure, but that 'l' is there in .off-topic.x and .loc.x too. So this
means that the rest of the newsfroup's name can override the 'l'. Why
then, doesn't the 'build' in lugnet.build or the 'announce' in
lugnet.announce also override the 'l'? (I understand that the answer is
- at least in part - "because that's not how I envisioned things
working" but it seems like a discreppancy.)
> > oh and shirts for people who use the group,
>
> The shirts Larry was talking about were related to LEGO.
Would a post in which I found a new brand-x brick where the 1x elements
sucked but the 2x elements were really compatible with LEGO be
appropriate for .build? That post would relaying info related to LEGO.
> > 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?
I was responding to an attitude that I feel from you and others - more
along the lines of a community thing than targeting you in specific.
> is likewise pretty literal -- mentions of other brands in the .reviews group
> is definitely unwanted.
That seems particularly reasonable given your global goals of linking
set reviews to Pause and whatever else.
> > 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"?
Right. I meant that some 'improvements' aren't truely improvements. I
was trying to suggest that enumerating every tiny detail and tightly
restricting subjet content could seem like an improvement to the people
caught-up inside the issue thinking about it (you, for instance), but it
wouldn't actually improve things. It sounds like you agree with this.
Also, the stuff you quoted on subjet adherence and flexibility from the
Terms and Conditions suggested that things are pretty good in that respect.
--
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
|
|
|
|
