|
|
 | | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
| Don't you think it is a little embarassing that the thread is now 75% administration Lar? I pushed "nested inline" in the expectation of lots of juicy NASA stuff. You didn't even include an "ob NASA" anywhere. :( You must go back N levels to (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
| (...) I agree, I'm not sure. I assumed it would belong in .nntp, just because we're talking about threading, and how it should work... But looking at the nntp charter, it's not clear if it belongs there or not. (...) Heh, whatever I think of bashing (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
| There is some confusion in my mind about whether this topic belongs in .general or .nntp... read the charter for general and it's on topic there. Plus that's where every other admin post is. So FUT to both I guess. (...) Whether it was already a (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
| (...) ... But since it didn't actually become a debate, shouldn't it be left alone? I thought it was a very interesting thread, and was surprised to find it just disappeared - if it wasn't for Steve's post, I wouldn't have had any idea that it was (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Followup-To, ex post facto
|
| (...) I agree, we encourage notification. It also helps taking the 'temperature' of the community - especially from people who choose not to participate in a hot thread but are irritated by it. This will help us know when to take action and when not (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
| | | | | Re: Followup-To, ex post facto
|
| (...) (Tim Courtney was just added to this list, IIRC) (...) Notification is *always* helpful. It may bring attention to something we overlooked. (I overlook things sometimes...) It will also validate that we're taking appropriate action. Depending (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
| | | | | Re: Followup-To, ex post facto
|
| (...) Thank you, Todd. I can think of a number of occasions in the past few months where this would have made lugnet a much more pleasant place to be. (...) Should we notify you guys if we think a thread needs guidance, or just assume that you guys (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
| | | | | Re: Followup-To, ex post facto, or theory and practice of forceFUTting
|
| (...) a FEW questions/comments. 1) This isn't a perfect fix, mail and nntp posters are not going to see the changes. 2) posts aren't moved, only the FUT is forced. Questions: Consider this thread: (URL) just forceFUTed the whole thread to (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
| | | | | Re: Followup-To, ex post facto
|
| (...) By the way - does it actually move the posts, or just sets the FUT on them? From what I can see, posts that were "corrected" are still in their original newsgroups? Also, I guess a blank O-FUT header signifies that there was no original FUT, (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
| | | | | Re: Followup-To, ex post facto
|
| (...) This is a great addition to the community. It's better than your typical moderation, which kills the discussion entirely. Hopefully people will have an easier time ignoring discussions they don't want to see, because they will be moved to the (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
|
