 | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
Lorbaat wrote in message ... (...) violator (...) Because it contributed NOTHING to the discussion. This one does. I'll respond below. (...) repeat (...) what (...) Ok, I'll detail what my response to Scott's latest post is. I don't remember all of (...) (24 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) I think it's always a bad idea to close your eyes to history. (...) I agree with Todd's current policy on cancels. I think that publicly pointing out that a post is incorrect (which ALSO ends up in the permanent record of Lugnet) is all that (...) (24 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) I agree, and I also tend to think that forcing or recommending cancellation of misplaced announcements would only encourage an increase in misplaced announcements because the perceived damage (and thus the risk) is lower. Plus, I think there (...) (24 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
Just a general thought: One problem we have in this whole discussion is that there are two separate (but related) issues on the table, which unfortuanately are currenlty tightly coupled. The first issue is Scott's mis-post. The second issue is how (...) (24 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) permanent (...) Well, my thoughts on this are: I think the "attractive nuisance" factor will be lower with deleted posts. People who repeatedly abuse the system still need to be dealt with. The reasons I think (...) (24 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) I totally agree. Cancellation as a moderating technique, used consistently, worked extremely well in the IBM environment. It's been 5 years since I was there but I ran some fairly controversial FORUMs and had to use the heavy hand of (...) (24 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <38AE1C47.71263742@v...er.net>... (...) Well true. But being ToSsed would be just as effective for keeping things in control I think (if someone is ToSsed they will no longer be able to abuse the system). (...) I (...) (24 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) Because the latter is not exercising editorial control. I am not an expert on liability law but you may want to research (and I'm not sure where to send you, exactly) into the different takes that Prodigy (which did exercise editorial control) (...) (24 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) It isn't going to make me leave, although it does mean that sometimes I don't bother submitting ideas or problems.. which perhaps isn't a bad thing depending on the quality of my ideas ;-) (...) I'd like to help too, that's why I thought (...) (24 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) don't (...) depending (...) want (...) that (...) Actually, there seems to be momentum for a panel, or at least Todd has started to agree it might be a good idea. Check out: (URL) and the replies to it. (...) (24 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) This has to come from Todd, we can't self organize this. Further I'm not sure groups are the right way to go, perhaps a mailing list? (24 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) (URL) This is from over 6 months ago - I think the seed of the idea came from Todd in the first place :) Of course, whether that means Todd thinks it is a good idea *now* or *later*, I'm not too sure.. (...) I have - in fact one of the four (...) (24 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) I think there are two main issues: 1) Is this a good time to start a LUGNET panel to deal with regulatory issues? I think that quite a few people think that it is - most importantly though - does Todd? My interpretation of the various hints (...) (24 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) Use something like onelist. The mails are available forever. (note, I said something LIKE onelist... actually Todd has the technology to do this, I think, without going outside his own sandbox) (24 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <38AF34B1.B4C22D8F@v...er.net>... (...) if (...) might (...) some (...) I agree mailing list is the best way. Perhaps we should start tossing more concrete ideas of how decisions will be made, what kinds of things (...) (24 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) I think you said it about right -- it's not wise IMHO to try to push people into thing, but rather to be available to help set things up when the time is right. (...) I tend to think that anything which can't be discussed openly in an open (...) (24 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) I don't have a strong opinion either way, as it will only directly effect panel members anyway - but is the move towards a mailing list a desire for privacy? I always thought that newsgroups gave better structure and reference abilities, so if (...) (24 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) panel (...) privacy? I (...) abilities, (...) when (...) be (...) powers? (...) means (...) takes (...) concensus (...) Well the idea of consensus is that you try and reach an agreement that everyone can (...) (24 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) I agree with the concept of concensus, but there isn't always a "right" way to go about something - there will be times when someone will never feel comfortable with a certain compromise. Rather than have a panel continually reiterate their (...) (24 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
Actually, thinking on - in the majority of occurances - would deliberation be necessary? If a panel member replies to a mis-placed one-off auction announcement, with a note saying "Please don't do this, etc, etc", and cc's or cross-posts this to the (...) (24 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) Agreed. But I think that one has been resolved, more or less, in that it appears that Todd has indicated that he would like for some sort of commitee to form. (...) Right. (...) Here, we disagree again. I think the T&C are perfectly valid as (...) (24 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) On the other hand... I personally think the panel should present a united front. This is why I think that the idea of appeals is not such a good one. Once something is being talked about by "the panel", it's pretty clear the T&C have been (...) (24 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) I, as well, feel this is important. If you are saying something, then it should be visible. If not concurrent with the event, then soon there after. I believe the Federal Reserve does this for some decisions (Fed Funds rate, etc). They (...) (24 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) Valid, yes in that they are internally consistent. But broken in that they prevent things that are reasonable and necessary. (...) But I in fact said that cancellation DOES work and IS effective as a control technique. I then pointed out that (...) (24 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <38B05490.B7C062B8@v...er.net>... (...) stand. I (...) in (...) slip-up) (...) indicate (...) Also at least partly broken in that they rely on Todd's interpretation that a "sealed bid auction" is not an auction (at (...) (24 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) Can you provide an example of something they prevent that is reasonable and necessary? (...) I didn't say you thought that they didn't work in any possible circumstance. I didn't say that *I* thought they didn't work in any possible (...) (24 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.council)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) It's an or-best-offer sale. On the internet, sure, there's little difference, but it is a valid sale type. (...) Umm, because it's in no way a sealed bid auction? EBay sends you updates telling you when someone outbids you, shows you a history (...) (24 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <38B0CAA9.25214679@v...er.net>... (...) built (...) Sounds like several times what I have... You must be pushing close to a million pieces if you haven't exceeded that... (...) Nah, I'm the one who probably should (...) (24 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
Lorbaat wrote in message ... (...) that (...) itself (...) difference, (...) auction (...) the (...) Well, if you bid, you generally get zero (if your offer wasn't good enough) or one update notice. Either an outbid notice or a "you won" notice. (...) (24 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) I personally think that SBA's are enough of an auction that they shouldn't be in .BST. However, I've sort-of come around to agreeing with Todd on allowing them there, for a couple of reasons. First being that there really isn't a sufficient (...) (24 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) Ok ok ok wait wait stop. I *don't* think that SBA's should be allowed in .buy-sell-trade. What I've always been trying to say is that an SBA is mathematically equivalent to a plain old regular OBO sale. In other words, SBA's that are conducted (...) (24 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
James Brown wrote in message ... (...) be (...) allowing (...) and (...) mostly (...) the (...) in (...) provide (...) I happen to agree. In fact, if OBO's become relegated to lugnet.market.auction, then the only things which would be acceptable (...) (24 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: When is an auction reference outside market.auction OK?
|
|
(...) Heh. That irony wasn't lost on me. :D eric (24 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
