Subject:
|
Re: wish's
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 4 Mar 2005 19:13:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
430 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman wrote:
> > Are the administrators in question hurting Lugnet? I defintely can see that.
>
> In your own words, why do you see it that way?
Hi Todd,
Here's why I see that certain administrators are hurting Lugnet: They're operating in the shadows and there's no transparency to the process. The rules aren't clearly defined, so there's a lot of murkiness as to how they operate. Combine this with the personalities involved, this makes the administration out to be a closed door private club that is not representative of the community. My perception is that you have a few people working behind closed doors with a certain concept of how they want Lugnet to be. The fact we have no meeting minutes, archived list traffic or otherwise, leads me to believe the discussion could be very lopsided to a pushy individual, completely misrepresentative of members overall, and/or based on personal animosities or biases, who knows?
How does this perception (and maybe this is relegated only to a few people) hurt
Lugnet? Posters feel they can't speak their mind, be critical of the
administration, or be themselves. One of the perceptions here is that the
future of Lugnet will be a lot more conservative, or "family oriented" in the
same direction as the people who write in against Janet Jackson on the
Superbowl. There's posters out there who feel persecuted by these
conservatives. Maybe that's completely unjustified. But the fear is, the
administration will side that way.
The further we go along with such closed door operation, you'll see more and
more groups or posters saying "Goodbye Lugnet". And that's not a good thing.
> > Some of the members here don't feel
> > comfortable with being on Lugnet anymore, and that's directly due to the
> > actions of the administration in place.
>
> Is cross-posting creating problems? If it is, we could set the "can't
> crosspost to" bit on .org.ca.rtltoronto, which would mediate the amount
> of leakage into and from other groups. I don't know if that's actually
> been a problem for you, but please let me know if you think it would help
> things.
I don't think it's a matter of crossposting. One of the best parts of
rtlToronto is that there's a core community of folks geographically colocated
who all know each other, but we often have "visiting guest stars". What the
issue is for us is that I think we're scared the administration's goals are
vaguely against our type of conversation.
> Since .rtltornoto is in the .org hierarchy, you can basically set your own
> rules as to what's conventional and what appropriate in the group, so long
> as LUGNET's Terms of Use are minded. If people are breaking the ToU left
> and right, then that's obviously a problem, and my first wish would be that
> the group could self-police.
That sounds like a really good fit, for us and other regional groups. I think
this has been Chris' fear all along: People on the outside will impose a rule
on us.
Following the Terms of Use on the front page should never be a problem. On the
other hand, the terms of use posted on the front page seem to be very different
than the ones currently used by the administration, which IIRC are based on a
post called "LUGNET Posting Policy Update".
There seems to be a magical "Line" to cross, but outside perception from us
looking in is that the line is set arbitrarily. Yesterday and today's posts are
evidence of this.
Self police? Sure. I'd probably be more draconian than Larry, Lenny or
whoever, my colleagues here would attest to :) But I think that at least would
be more representative of a local group.
> Without getting into peoples' names or positions, what problem are we
> seeking to solve? I mean in the big picture, not just events of the past
> three days.
The problem is an administration which doesn't appear to be representative of
the community, administrating with vague rules or personal bias.
Calum
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: wish's
|
| (...) Wow, that was more than I was expecting. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts and for being candid. (...) I think you are definitely onto something here, in that perceptions are that the line is sometimes set arbitrarily. I don't (...) (19 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: wish's
|
| (...) I guess he took the gloves off too. (...) In your own words, why do you see it that way? (...) Is cross-posting creating problems? If it is, we could set the "can't crosspost to" bit on .org.ca.rtltoronto, which would mediate the amount of (...) (19 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
12 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
|
|
|
|
