Subject:
|
Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.nntp
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Mar 2001 19:27:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1260 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Kirby Warden writes:
> In lugnet.admin.nntp, Todd Lehman writes:
> > * Add new group lugnet.rant or lugnet.lego.rant? Why or why not?
> > * Add new group lugnet.rave or lugnet.lego.rave? Why or why not?
>
> I'm not sure it would be a good idea to add either of these groups. On
> the surface it seems great...but I see a potential let-down. When I read
> discussions in Lugnet, it seems to me that positive and negative
> conversations add to the substance. Here's what I see...
>
> Todd posts an article about TLC's newest license agreement. If Bob has
> something positive to say about it ("wow, that's great news, the potential
> here is staggering!"), he has to post directly to .rave.
Nonononono, nobody would be required to post raving praise to .rave; the
rave area would just be safe haven for raving -- a place where you can't
(shouldn't) be chastised for saying nice things, or where you can go to
always read nice things. There wouldn't be any requirement that all nice
things be posted there. It would be mainly for starting new threads out of
the blue. Same with .rant -- it's not meant as an alt.flame type of group.
> If Ted has
> something negative to say ("This really bites, just one more step down the
> road to Armageddon."), he has to post to .rant.
Nonono, he *can* post to .rant, but doesn't *have to*. The idea behind
rant is to have a place to let off steam in the company of people who
understand -- a place where you can't (shouldn't) be chastised for saying
rough things.
> If anyone wants to see
> what others have to say about the information, they have to go to .rant or
> .rave. Commenting on other people's posts becomes difficult as .rant and
> .rave is loaded with dozens of topics daily.
Nono, that's not what I meant at all. I'm sorry if that part was
confusing...! Certainly there may be some followups here and there that go
there, but mainly the groups should be for new discussions. There would be
no requirement that all rants and rave go into those groups, just as there
would be no requirement that all debate happens in a debate group. It's
just a safe-haven area.
> I think seperating positive and negative discussion into seperate
> groups effectivley kills discussion as a whole.
No, the idea isn't to separate them out, don't worry. Well, maybe to
separate out the roughest stuff.
> If someone gets out of hand, they will be advised to calm down and be
> more cautious or their membership (I assume) will simply be eliminated.
I don't want to see that. As long as they're not breaking the T&C and not
hurting other community members, it's much better IMO if they have a place
to vent than to ask them to calm down.
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
| (...) I'm not sure it would be a good idea to add either of these groups. On the surface it seems great...but I see a potential let-down. When I read discussions in Lugnet, it seems to me that positive and negative conversations add to the (...) (23 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
101 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
|
|
|
|
