Subject:
|
Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.nntp
|
Date:
|
Thu, 22 Mar 2001 03:41:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
881 times
|
| |
|
|
[I finally trimmed lugnet.lego.direct..., I just now remembered Todd's
"Murphy's Law" post.]
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Thomas Garrison writes:
> In lugnet.admin.nntp, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> > I would further disable any message from going into lego.direct
> > if it was cross-posted (either new or a reply). That group has
> > a very specific charter, namely:
> > > http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=6
> > Thus, to me, by definition the content is not suitable for cross-posting
> > with other groups.
>
> ?? Suppose I posted a question about Castle which, to quote Todd's post #6
> above, raised
> "Issues/concerns/suggestions which haven't yet been raised"
> ? The resulting thread, although about Castle, would of course live in
> .lego.direct. I think it likely that many folks in .castle would not read
> .lego.direct but might have an interest in such a thread; if I could not
> crosspost, I would probably drop a separate note in Castle announcing the post
> in .lego.direct (which would of course be crossposting by other means). I
> don't see anything inappropriate in this scenario[1]. Under Todd's proposed
> rules, any (presumably topical) followup by an AFOL would go to .castle, thus
> not cluttering up .lego.direct, while people in .castle would know about the
> thread if they were interested in follow-ups from Lego.
Well, I didn't read anything in Todd's proposal that specifically
addresses cross-posting or redirection. He only proposes what would
be done for messages that land in lugnet.lego.direct, to keep the
chatter down in that group. So I have not seen him propose what
would happen should someone want direct a spin-off discussion from
l.l.d to another group where AFOLs can freely banter it about.
I don't have my own views on cross-posting or redirection sorted
out very well, but here are my thoughts anyhow:
1) Any message appearing in l.l.d for the first time (new thread)
should not be cross-posted. It should land in l.l.d. only, helping
to ensure that it is a very focused post suitable for direct
discussion with TLC. Thus I feel cross-posts should be disabled
for that group.
1a) The danger (I find) if the above is allowed to be cross-posted:
When someone sees that message in one of the cross-posted groups,
and doesn't realize it's also in l.l.d., they may reply to it.
Todd's proposed rules won't allow that because l.l.d is on the list,
so l.l.d either has to be trimmed from the distribution, or the
message is rejected in its entirety. Now you still have two separate
threads going on. I don't think you will be able to avoid parallel
threads appearing. Heck, we can't even avoid it now within the
same group! :] I don't think it's such a big deal. If people
want to read anything "official" from TLC then they'll have to
keep an eye on that group. It's no real bother in my opinion,
and is as it should be.
1b) If someone puts a post i
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
21 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
