General Discussions about LUGNET : 4894


Administrative / General / 4894

(...) Which is why these the anouncments would be _very_ easy to filter out. (...) This is very much a "chicken & egg" debate. (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

(...) But if they are not in at all, they don't have to be filtered out. If the theme-name would be included in the posts in market.auction they are very easy to find there with the search function for newsgroups and then there would be no (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

(...) Not only do most people object to allowing this - but the only people I've seen who are for it are potential *sellers*, not buyers. Furthermore, this goes against what Todd said: "It was never the intention for the welcoming to occur by any (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

(...) In what way? (...) To ensure buyers are fully aware of what is available. If this change was to come into action, it would put private auctions on a par with private sales. Nothing more. (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

(...) The reference is to auction posts of any kind, whether they are considered spam or not is irrelevant and depends on each individual. (...) I'll quote your original post and reply to that, if you don't mind: "I suggest the pre-auction (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

(...) This was my point. (...) Indeed. But many may consider "box shifters" OK. (...) To allow easy filtering. (...) want (...) out (...) auction (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

(...) Like Jeff mentioned - it depends on the individuals, however I didn't hear ONE buyer - not one! - that would be glad to accept these posts in theme-groups. (...) Exactly - even more confusion. 'Why are these types accepted, and others not?' (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

(...) Indeed. (...) There appears to be some degree of "confusion" right now. Todd's update of the T&C may well change that. (...) It would be clear from the message header what the message contained. (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

(...) Well, I hear one: Scott. And there may certainly be others out there who are afraid to speak up because they might be labeled the wrong way, or because they know that even though it might benefit them personally, they understand that it would (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Standing up for Buyers (WAS: Re: Suggested Change in Charter for ALL Lugnet Theme Groups.) —Mark Rideout

(...) Well (although I feel like I'll get stoned by everyone), I'll stand up as a buyer. I would love to see auction announcements in each theme. Being that I perform all my LUGNET browsing through web based, I usually stay to one group. It would be (...) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

In lugnet.admin.general, Shiri Dori writes: <sniped bulk of well-said argument against Scott's proposal> (...) Well said, Shiri. This to me, is the crux of the whole thing. Lugnet was (at least partly) created as a response to the fact that RTL (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

My Last Word on This(?) —Scott Arthur

(...) I’d be mad if I thought this would work. I suppose I really just wanted to see what the range of opinion is. The RTL point raised a few times is hard to argue against as it is very much a “chicken & egg” issue (IMO). If LUGNet does continue to (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

(...) 1. It will create more work for the admin council who by your suggestion have to preapprove these auction posts. 2. It will create confusion and friction because people will say, "Why can't I put my eBay auctions on then? It's all castle (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

(...) (intentionally (...) Filter them out (...) want (...) out (...) auction (...) I agree 100%. (...) But that does not mean that that opinion does not exist? (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

(...) No it doesn't. But meanwhile 11 people have participated in this thread. Except for you, Scott, who came up with the idea, not one person is in favor for it. Sure, 10 people don't represent the whole community. But show me one other person (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

(canceled) —Scott Arthur

"Shiri Dori" <shirid@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Fr2BII.J3z@lugnet.com... (...) and (...) announcements (...) them (...) favor (...) my (...) this (...) Sure. But sometimes it is difficult to change. Using this form of debate, it can be (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

(...) Actually, it's still a bad idea even if 90% (or 98%) of people wanted it, because it would alienate the last 10% (or 2%). That's not what kind of ship we're sailing here. The theme discussion groups are for discussions, not commerce. Nobody is (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

(...) this (...) Actually, I suspect it has aliented or could alienate some people (a few names pop to mind(1)), but I would posit that those people are for the most part interested in bang for their buck, and not in discussion, so would generally (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

(...) Speaking as a buyer, this would be a convenience for me. There you go. However it's a bad idea anyway. That, I feel, does NOT contradict referencing auctions for valid reasons NOT related to promoting the auction itself, which I support (...) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

(...) I notice you choose to ignore this objection. I'lla dd that it also creates a lot more work for Todd. What exactly is the benefit of this suggestion? Very little as far as I can see. It creates a method for a small group of people to advertise (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

(...) Scott, you're dreaming. It's not gonna happen. Forget it. At this point, you're just wasting my time, other people's time, and you're attempting to subvert one of the most sacred core principles of this site. --Todd (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

(...) You've used this "chicken & egg" response twice (at least), so I'm responding to it. RTL came first. This is a fact. Part of the reason Lugnet is structured the way it is, is in response to what happened to RTL. In particular the commercial (...) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)