Subject:
|
Re: Bulk Lego Auctions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 3 Jan 2002 23:40:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
647 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Allan Bedford writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Your first post qualified, barely, if one grants that your site is more
> > newsworthy than a run of the mill personal site. Your second one saying you
> > got two more letters and some other updates was clearly well outside the
> > envelope of "newsworthy". IMHO.
>
> My comment to your last point would be this.
>
> In the 7 days or so since I made these two posts (oldest being 7 days ago)
> I've received about 1300 hits to my site. 99% of these originated from one
> of the two postings to LUGNET. Of all those hits, I've received only one
> email commenting that I should not have made the second announcement in the
> .announce group. Do I take it from the lack of dozens of negative emails
> that most people *apparently* don't mind my posting to the .announce group?
> Or do I address and react to the one lone voice of dissent?
> I did follow-up that complaint with a prompt email in an attempt to open a
> dialog on the topic. Unfortunately 3 days later I still haven't heard back
> from that person. Do I assume my arguements were so stunning that I've made
> a convert? :)
Maybe your mail is being bounced silently on the way in or out? I sent you a
complaint via email when you posted the second time but got no reply,
leading me to believe you never saw it or your reply never made it back to me.
> > > but is setting follow-up on this
> > > message to .debate, since it has nothing to do with either
> > > market.buy-sell-trade or .announce.) :)
> >
> > I've in turn set FUT to admin.general since this is a newsgroup charter
> > question, not a debate about things not related to LEGO.
> >
> > admin.general or admin.terms is the appropriate place for this question as
> > the admins should, appropriately, comment on what the correct use of
> > .announce is.
>
> Which ultimately highlights my point about some of us not knowing where the
> heck to post anything. It was noted today that the 2001 posting totals are
> down over the previous year. Here I am 3 years into LUGNET, still
> apparently making mistakes about which group to post to. How is a new
> person ever supposed to figure out the compartmentalization around here?
Read the group headers, they do give guidance. Ask (in admin.general) if
unclear. People do want to help. But you have to WANT to be helped, not want
to argue about it.
> It
> must be daunting.
I agree, it can indeed be daunting. Some charters are unclear.
> I'm sure that some shy but wonderful people refrain from
> posting for the simple fact that they are afraid to make a mistake.
That is a problem in any public forum. The way to address it is to give
gentle correction when people make mistakes and encourage their further
participation. People should not feel constrained from posting.
> And for my final trick......
>
> I won't redirect this follow-up, but I will disagree with you again Larry.
> I really just wanted to hear and debate your opinions on the topic. I
> didn't want to raise this as an admin issue on LUGNET because I really
> didn't want to raise it as an admin issue on LUGNET. The .debate group was
> actually the appropriate place to send the thread, but I won't correct you.
No it was not initially, and it *remains* the incorrect place, no matter how
many times you assert it.
Note that something being an "admin issue" doesn't mean that it is
necessarily something where someone needs to be chastised about something.
In this case, clarification of the charter (reiteration, in fact), and some
gentle reminding is the appropriate outcome. Your not wanting it to be an
admin issue has zero bearing on whether it IS an admin issue or not.
> I'd hate to scare you into not posting anymore. ;)
I have no idea what this means, if it's sarcasm, it's lost on me. It's
certainly not funny.
> Best regards and all comments meant in the spirit of friendly debate,
> Allan B.
I have no interest whatever in debating this topic for the sake of debating
it. It's an admin issue. An admin *spoke up* about it, actually. (and many
of us are breathing a deep sigh of relief to see Todd speak up, even a
little, again)
If you want to debate it purely for fun, you're barking up the wrong tree.
I'm not interested. LUGNET is too important.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Bulk Lego Auctions
|
| (...) I don't know what the ratios are as to who uses the web vs. nntp interfaces, but for people using nntp there is no easy way to access the charter of a newsgroup. --Bill. (23 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Bulk Lego Auctions
|
| (...) My apologies for making any assumptions. I wondered if the mail had perhaps bounced at the other end without generating an error at my end. (...) As mentioned (twice or three times now) I did, most certainly, read the charter for that group. I (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Bulk Lego Auctions
|
| (...) And in all seriousness, I want to assure you that I read this charter before making both of my recent posts. Despite the current state of LUGNET, I have no desire to attempt to skirt charters just for the sake of promoting a website. (...) Now (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
38 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
|
|
|
|
