|
|
 | | Re: A Change
|
| (...) And of course that's precisely why I'm leery of the system. I can see the logic behind it, but it runs the risk of excluding people who misinterpret the system. It's been a long-standing problem where people have been confused about how to (...) (21 years ago, 9-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, lugnet.admin.nntp)
| | | | | Re: A Change
|
| (...) Nope! Nothing could be further from the truth, actually. To get on the AucZILLA list, all you had to do was submit a bid -- or reply to any public auction announcement posting. If someone forgot to include their name, I wrote them and asked. I (...) (21 years ago, 9-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, lugnet.admin.nntp)
| | | | | Re: A Change
|
| (...) Even if that had been the intent, it would always hold the possibility of backfiring. I've been a read-only lurker for almost two years now, and every once in a while I'd e-mail someone a response to their LUGNET post if I felt it was (...) (21 years ago, 9-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, lugnet.admin.nntp)
| | | | | Re: A Change
|
| (...) Huh-- I had actually thought that posting setup was that way by design. I recall way back when Auczilla was around, someone saying that it was specifically designed to be tricky to sign up for. Hence, only people who were "truly serious" about (...) (21 years ago, 9-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, lugnet.admin.nntp)
| | | | | Re: A Change
|
| (...) I won't lie, if the email verification system was removed I would likely post more, well, more respond to more threads anyway. but I can completely understand why this system is in place. if there is a way of provide similar protection by (...) (21 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.people, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.curators)
|
|
