 | | Re: lugnet.announce is not for MOCs
|
|
"Ben Ellermann" <ben_289@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:GpDuBw.50H@lugnet.com... (snipped newsgroup comments, see what Larry just wrote) (...) can (...) Hey, that's ok. We don't expect new people to be up to snuff on all the norms around here. (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: lugnet.announce is not for MOCs
|
|
(...) Me too. Note please that this doesn't necessarily have to be Todd and Suz. (or Steve or Jen or Dan) There are other people who would be willing to take some of the load if empowered to do so. As James Brown said, administration is not (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: lugnet.announce is not for MOCs
|
|
(...) I thought of a similar idea yesterday (lugnet.moc)after reading about this problem. Lugnet.announce.moc would be great because it would allow us to post all new MOC's together and in their respective newsgroups. Then a person who visits lugnet (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: lugnet.announce is not for MOCs
|
|
"William R Ward" <bill@wards.net> wrote in message news:m2advvcf1p.fsf@...rds.net... (...) I agree. I was reading the 'top 1000 noisemakers' thread, one of them referenced back to a post where Todd compiled a list of posters in the .cad groups. It (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: lugnet.announce is not for MOCs
|
|
(...) Lugnet has gotten by just fine without moderators, but that's because historically the admin(s) have been there to step in and say "don't do that" and even delete messages if needed. If it is expected that admins will continue to play a less (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
