 | | Re: Compromised Functionality on Lugnet and Brickshelf? —Shaun Sullivan
| | | | (...) Again - in my opinion - yes. Lugnet has already been besieged by some serious challenges in the past 18 months, most of which were natural and forseeable consequences of a community that loved its small-village feel enough that it did (...) (19 years ago, 13-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Compromised Functionality on Lugnet and Brickshelf? —Larry Pieniazek
| | | | | | (...) That's not really actionable, sorry. At least not for me anyway. (...) Great suggestions. However, they weren't clear to me, no... That is, they didn't jump out at me AS SUGGESTIONS at all. I've asked that posts that should be tracked as (...) (19 years ago, 13-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Compromised Functionality on Lugnet and Brickshelf? —Larry Pieniazek
| | | | | (...) Point taken. There are a number of issues that LUGNET is struggling with, but this certainly is one of them. (...) Left that dangling... I agree that it doesn't. Personally I think it might be desireable to not consider posts that didn't get (...) (19 years ago, 13-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Compromised Functionality on Lugnet and Brickshelf? —Jeff Findley
| | | | | (...) You'd think people would do this, but they clearly don't. It's "too hard" for people to post their pictures to their Bricklink folders, wait for them to be moderated, then post to Lugnet. It's easier for people to do both at the same time (or (...) (19 years ago, 15-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | | | | |
