Subject:
|
Bloviate (was Re: Warnings( was: WAKE UP!))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Apr 2006 21:52:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
6037 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
<snip>
>
> This assumes a couple of things that may not be relevant on LUGNET at this
> time: one, that members acquiesce to admin authority; and two, that there is
> proactive admin presence and activity.
>
> {Kelly}
There are a few more things that warnings, proper adminship and the like are
contingent on--
That the admins are not a bunch of bloviating blowhards (that leaves me out of
the admin running right there) who appear to me more interested in the letter of
the laws than the spirit of the laws
That the admins are not playing 'selective banning' with people they don't
appreciate vs. the people they do
That the admins are not a bunch of uptight 'constitutionalists' who debate every
little point ad nauseum and want to set up committees and peer groups and yap
about how they want to do the right thing when, in fact, all they are doing is
souring the atmosphere.
Anyway, not that I noticed any of these issues anywhere around here in the
not-so-distant past.
LUGNET is a Public On-Line Usergroup. As such, you have to expect a wide range
of posting 'styles' for lack of a better generic word. If you don't have the
ability to get along with others of not-quite-like-mind playing in the same
sandbox as you, maybe it's time for you to find another sandbox.
One of the few points that irks (almost) everyone in most on-line groups is
posting in the wrong group. That was the impetus of this entire discussion. It
was a clear violation and no one, besides the transgressor, had any doubt about
it. On the other hand, there were those that couldn't wait to 'pile-on' with
the condescending and very alarmingly dirty posts--brilliant! Big help!
And then the people with the "LUGNET has to improve!! We think it sucks!!" If
there are people who have chips on their shoulder because LUGNET isn't runing
the way they want it to be run, then by all means, go start another NG.
Bionicle did it. Supposedly that's a terrific NG. I dunno--never been there,
nor do I plan on actually going there. I love my bionicle sets, but this is the
NG I'll talk about 'em (if I ever decide to...)
For me and my house, having the freedom to post about my chosen hobby right here
on LUGNET is absolutely perfect. My posts are reaching their intended
audience--fellow LEGO enthusiasts, and the 'spirit of the law' around here is
just about dead-on for keeping the signal-to-noise ratio balanced properly.
Sure there are flare-ups. It happens in any on-line user group. For those of
us who have been on-line for a while, we know it happens--it's background noise.
And for those that have been around LUGNET for a while know that this happens.
Eh, it keeps the place interesting.
And maybe it would be better if there were a more demonstrative admin team.
However, there isn't. Contrary to my friend Lar's assertion, letting the
(previous) admins/owners of LUGNET know that their efforts in the past were and
are appreciated can only do good for the entire community. I was actively
involved in volunteer organizations for a long time--getting pleasant feedback
makes the volunteering all the better. Getting negative feedback makes one tend
towards just 'packing it in'--there's nothing quite like getting kicked when
you're down to stop you from getting back up.
Anyway, yes I'm bloviating... hence I'll never be an admin ;)
If Todd and Suz decide to actively partake in LUGNET again, I'll support that.
If Todd and Suz decide to hand off LUGNET to someone else, again, all the power
to them.
If Todd and Suz decide to call it a day and shut off LUGNET--have a good life
guys--you deserve a rest! Thanks for the good times until now.
And if Todd and Suz have ideas about continuing and bettering this NG and they
need some help and support, sign me up--I'll do what I can. I'm not much good
at a whole bunch of stuff, but I'm a pretty big fan of the brick and of this
little place on the internet known as LUGNET. I would like to see it continue
and if my help is needed for that, then drop me a line. A good way of helping
the continuation of LUGNET is to let the owners know that they have our support,
whatever they decide and that their efforts are appreciated.
All because those two don't owe the rest of us *anything*. I don't care how
much of a financial donation people have made over the years--donating money to
something is just that--a donation. I don't donate to things with the thought
that I'm going to get myself in a "higher esteemed" bracket therefore "Todd and
Suz must listen to me!"--that's a bunch of horsefeathers.
So Todd and Suz, again I state for the record--thank you.
You guys make the best decision for yourselves. You don't owe us anything. You
have nothing to prove to anyone. And if the many years that LUGNET's been here
and the work you've done doesn't speak volumes to your dedication to the AFOL
community, then it's they who are not listening.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Bloviate
|
| (...) I agree, admins that can't be trusted or don't behave for the good of their community are problematic. I belong to at least one message board (not LEGO-related) where a good deal of the above applies. I don't post there often. But if you're (...) (18 years ago, 3-Apr-06, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Bloviate (was Re: Warnings( was: WAKE UP!))
|
| (...) Personally, I don't think that's fair. That's the same thing as telling people who disagree with a governmental policy in a certain country to like it or leave it. That doesn't benefit anyone - things only get better when people standup and (...) (18 years ago, 4-Apr-06, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Bloviate (was Re: Warnings( was: WAKE UP!))
|
| [snip] David, you rock. I admit it: I'm a wuss. I need handholding to do a job I don't like. And over the years it was often YOUR posts and private mails that got printed out and (literally) posted on my refridgerator to get me through the more (...) (18 years ago, 4-Apr-06, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Warnings( was: WAKE UP!)
|
| (...) In my experience, mod/admin decisions should be made based on official warnings rather than peer recommendations, which may be biased or incomplete. For instance, having 5 people say "Don't do that" about something is not as effective as a (...) (18 years ago, 3-Apr-06, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
42 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
|
|
|
|
