Subject:
|
Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.nntp
|
Date:
|
Mon, 19 Mar 2001 13:40:10 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
1860 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> > lego.* hierarchy was set up. Until Thursday, I hadn't realized just how
> > much TLC official business was appearing outside of that area. I'd noticed
> > a couple things here and there but it just didn't sink in. Again, nothing
> > against Tomas or Jake; this was something that should have been set up a
> > year ago.
[...]
> Persons working for TLC can post anywhere they want as Fans. However they
> should not post as an offical voice of TLC outside the .lego groups.
The problem this email address filter does not (and cannot) solve and
actually exacerbates is the "is this an official voice of TLC or not"
problem. Presuming it becomes simple for Jake and Tomas to post using their
secret AFOL identities as opposed to their superhero TLC identities, at what
point does the *content* of a post actually come into play when deciding
whether the voice is official or not. If mild mannered Jake@yahoo.com says,
"To the bat cave, Tomas" is he really Bruce Wayne or is he Batman? Is any
mention of the train contest by Jake an "official voice" regardless of his
email address? If Tomas ever mentions Bionicles in the Bionicle newsgroups
(regardless of his email address) don't you think it's just about as
official as it would be when he posts via his lego.com address?
If you simply say "an official voice is one posting from a lego.com address"
then Tomas and Jake are free to post messages containing the identical
content of their previous messages from their personal email addresses.
Isn't it the content of a message that is important? Isn't it content that
concerns you? Had Jake and Tomas posted in response to the latest MOC a
"that's so cool" message using their lego.com address would a "yesterday's
events" of that sort have caused this precipitation? That seems unlikely to me.
Just some thoughts from another 13 year old screaming lunatic fan,
John Hansen
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
| (...) That's hard to judge until a few months have passed. I have a very good feeling about this. (...) It's impossible to answer that question completely, since it's a fuzzy thing. However, we should trust that Brad and his people will do the right (...) (23 years ago, 20-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
| (...) I have read through most of this thread and I totally agree with Todd on this. I also see the issue of AFOL to AFOL discussions in the .lego section a little more clearly now. This seems very simple and a very good idea to me. Discussions (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
232 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
