| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> I'm not yet a member (mainly because most of my posting has been to OT
> rather than LEGO-specific contributions), so perhaps I'll count as a hostile
> witness when I suggest that your idea has great merit. Many sites offer
> provisional or limited access for non-members, only granting full privelege
> to those who subscribe. Why should that not be in place here? If the
> purpose of LUGNET is to allow like-minded LEGO users to share opinions, then
> I can see allowing unrestricted postingaccess to LEGO-specific groups. But
> why should a non-member get any say in admin? One might argue that
> .marketplace should be restricted, since the poster is essentially getting
> free advertising.
Actually, those two are great ideas, IMHO. I wonder how many people that
aren't members post updates about their LEGO eBay auctions on Lugnet, and never
give back to the upkeep of Lugnet... I hadn't ever thought of that before.
And the admin one is equally justifiable [1]. However...
> As for OT, there are innumerable newsgroups for every brand of discussion
> for those who want to participate--why should LUGNET have to provide the
> free fix for debate junkies?
...one of the purposes of the debate groups is for a place for non-LEGO topics
to spill over from other groups- organically arrived at debates, rather than
hothouse debates grown solely for off-topic.debate. If potential members
aren't allowed to post there, they might feel less welcome and therefore less
likely to become members.
I guess, since I want to see Lugnet flourish, I am in favor of doing whatever
makes people most likely to become members, given the kind of person that they
are.
eric
[1] I should say that both of these ideas would require restructuring the
groups slightly from their present form, but I don't want to get into it right
now. Point is, I agree with the principle behind the idea.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| Call me elitist... (and I don't think I'm 100% disagreeing) (...) I'm not. That is, I'm not for enabling *everyone* to be a member. There are certain people I would be happy to see not join, heck, not even participate here. There are only a handful (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:>>Hey, that's a good idea- if you pay to become a Lugnet member, you're allowed (...) I'm not yet a member (mainly because most of my posting has been to OT rather than LEGO-specific contributions), (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
90 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
|
|
|
|
