Subject:
|
Re: Why these news groups were created
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.nntp
|
Date:
|
Wed, 22 Sep 2004 19:56:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
7113 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.nntp, John Neal wrote:
> But you are talking about {LEGO} related questions, not {personal} questions.
> I have no problem with LUGNET boards that {very specifically} relate to LEGO.
> It's all of the personal stuff that I am questioning.
Yep! Any way you slice it, once you let people start talking to each other in a
back-and-forth manner, you're going to get community development. If you let
people ask Lego-related questions and give Lego-related answers, I guarantee you
that unless you actively censor posts, you're going to get off-topic things and
a community will start to form. The only way to prevent it is by disallowing
people from having any sort of back-and-forth-- allowing only 1-way
conversations rather than dialogues.
> > On top of that, without building a community you'd be a lot less likely to
> > start up LUG's and LTC's. They've been mostly founded because people met in
> > an online community, realized they were from the same area, and decided to
> > get together-- not because they went around emailing random Lego fans in the
> > hopes of finding someone near them.
>
> But they didn't get together because they got to "know" each other first;
> merely that they were able to connect.
I'm not sure I agree. The fact that I live in Massachusetts is really off-topic,
I think. Or, at least as off-topic as me saying I'm a white heterosexual male.
By telling people where I live, they can 'get to know me' in that sense, outside
of the strictly-Lego context. And without that rather pertinent piece of
information, LUG's would be severely handicapped.
> I think we might be on the same page. I would feel much more comfortable if
> .people were placed off-topic, [and] it was only accessible by members over
> 18 (all of OT, that is). I enjoy and have participated in OT groups, but I
> am now believing that these groups can have a deleterious effect on LUGNET,
> especially among kids coming to LUGNET and to LUGNET's reputation as being
> "kid-friendly".
I honestly think there's stipulations in LUGNET's groups that fall close to the
line-- I'm not sure. For instance, you can talk about a recent NASA mission in
.space, an archeological discovery in .build.ancient, and Indiana Jones movies
in .adventurers. Although it's not 'abused' much, it's one of those things that
pushes the line for being "off-topic-for-Lego". Ultimately, I don't think I mind
until it becomes a problem that needs addressing. I'd be fine with .people
underneath the .off-topic area, although admittedly I'm also fine with it being
it's own root node. It'd be a far different matter, however, if it were under
(say) lugnet.general.people.
As for being 18, that's a tricky call. Every now and again something comes up
that would probably be not-so-good for kids, although ... I think the only one
I'd put in that category would be swearing, which goes on in on-topic areas just
as much as off-topic ones (.admin recently comes to mind). Sexual, political,
religious discussion I'm not sure I'd have a problem with-- and plus I don't
think many kids would be interested, short of maybe the curious ones who go
around entering naughty words into the search box, hoping for a glimmer of the
steamy underbelly of the adult world.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) But you are talking about LEGO related questions, not personal questions. I have no problem with LUGNET boards that very specifically relate to LEGO. It's all of the personal stuff that I am questioning. (...) But they didn't get together (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)
|
151 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
