Subject:
|
Re: Pre Auction Anouncment/Sale/Trade - Parts & Sets (8448 / 7171 / Pirates)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 12 Feb 2000 17:45:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4382 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2000 16:17:59 GMT, "Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
> > The problem I have with any thought of permanently banning Scott from BST
> > (or anyone for that matter) for the next infraction is that Scott's posting
> > is nowhere near the scale of the only individual which a formal process of
> > deciding how to handle his posting habits was ignited for. The result of
> > that formal process was a probationary period, and that individual has
> > elicited a few "you're starting to stray" notices.
>
> Ok, you're talking about Jonathan Wilson. I mostly ignore his posts
> now, but I'll admit that, in one way, posting auction notices to
> groups that don't welcome them doesn't quite reach the overall
> negative effect that Jonathan's posts did. In one way. In another,
> though, doing so does.
Kind of ironic, huh? :-) AFAIK, Jonathan hadn't broken any of the T&C for
the discussion groups. (There's no "you mustn't annoy the bejesus out of
people" rule, and at this point I'm not entirely sure there shouldn't be,
but that'd be a fun open-debate. :-)
> I think Todd would agree that one of the main things he had in mind
> when setting up the market group structure and limiting auction
> announcements to _only_ the .auction group is the negative effect
> auction announcements/updates can have on those who absolutely do not
> want to read them.
Yup, and the people who not only don't want to read them but also don't want
to even know that they exist. It seems there was a larger percentage of
vocal folks of this type back in 1994-95 when auctions weren't an everyday
occurrance yet, but I'm sure it's something that will always annoy folks who
want to enjoy the hobby simply and purely and free from issues like auctions
and mega-sales.
> I would imagine that if auction posts were to be allowed on a regular
> basis in other groups you could see the same sort of negative effect
> as if someone with a bad attitude and a case of rudeness were allowed
> to continue to post rude things - people would leave. That's not what
> we want here.
Agreed! If the extra bandwidth from auction noise didn't cause certain types
of people to leave, certainly the ensuing flamewars would.
Something for naysayers to keep in mind: One of the core tenets behind the
LUGNET discussion group stucture was to bring back old-timers and rekindle
the original sense of "good old-fashioned building and playing" which made
RTL so great in its early years 1993-94. So far I think it's worked out
great.
> I agree, and, to be honest, now that you've brought up the comparison,
> I'd rather not see a permanent ban as the choice here, since we'd have
> to make the comparison between that and someone who probably should
> have been banned but wasn't for much worse..
I'd hate to see a permanent ban either (for Scott) -- and I don't think
it's even necessary -- and that's why I asked Scott what he thought the
consequences should be for him if he goofs it again. I'd like to see him
come up with something and agree to be held to it. Basic accountability and
a little responsibility is all I want to see, I guess.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
110 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
