|
| |
|  
structure, tough, decisions
(score: 6.220)
|
|
| |
|
structure, tough, decisions
(score: 6.220)
|
|
| |
|
structure, tough, decisions
(score: 6.220)
|
|
 | | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
| (...) I like the idea already expressed for .rant/rave combined. (...) I agree with your reasoning on this one. It's a good idea. (...) This is the area I visit the most (after Castle). Your suggested change is very good -- it mimics how I think (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
| |
|
structure, tough, decisions
(score: 6.220)
|
|
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
| (...) I'm for both of these groups (ie, lugnet.rant and lugnet.rave). I think that your reasons for wanting them are valid. (...) Hmm. I'll be honest- I would rather see debates about Bionicle take place in the Bionicle newsgroup, than a general (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
| |
|
structure, tough, decisions
(score: 6.220)
|
|
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
| Ok, some initial thoughts.... I was opposed to a .rant type group earlier, I now see that it could be valuable. One question though is how to get the ranting to move there. I don't think we can eliminate initial rants in response to an announcement, (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
| |
|
structure, tough, decisions
(score: 6.220)
|
|
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
| (...) Good question. In all cases, I'd make sure the old URLs still worked in case there were links or references to old articles. Groups that had a significant amount of stuff to be moved would probably be reinserted as if they were new at the new (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
| |
|
structure, tough, decisions
(score: 6.220)
|
|
| |
|
structure, tough, decisions
(score: 6.220)
|
|
| |
|
structure, tough, decisions
(score: 6.220)
|
|
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
| (...) Me too -- they belong right alongside regular Bionicle discussions, IMHO. The funny thing is, they belong more in a lugnet.debate than they do in lugnet.off-topic.debate. I haven't been successful yet (ever) at getting people not to have LEGO (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
| |
|
structure, tough, decisions
(score: 6.220)
|
|
| |
|
structure, tough, decisions
(score: 6.220)
|
|
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
| (...) What are those connotations? You're making me feel old. :-) Other than spontaneous all-night slam-dancing with techno trance house musing and things of that ilk, I'm not aware of other meanings of the word "rave." I don't think there's (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
| |
|
structure, tough, decisions
(score: 6.220)
|
|
| |
|
structure, tough, decisions
(score: 6.220)
|
|
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
| (...) Ok, to be more clear about it: I would rather see this problem dealt with than see the group made to try and cause it to happen organically. I certainly agree that on topic debates moving to lugnet.off-topic.debate is bad- for one thing, that (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
| |
|
structure, tough, decisions
(score: 6.220)
|
|
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
| (...) Oh, I don't think there would be a problem with that! :-) (...) Why and how? If the group didn't allow follow-ups from other areas, then people would just get around it by posting their follow-up rant in another area, defeating the purpose. Or (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
| |
|
structure, tough, decisions
(score: 6.220)
|
|
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
| (...) Yes, please. I would love to see this move out of the usual theme areas. I have no opinion on whether it belongs under .lego or not. (...) I like this idea. I was thinking about posting some sort of rave this morning. I am concerned, however, (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
| |
|
structure, tough, decisions
(score: 6.220)
|
|
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
| (...) So if I'm willing to possibly take a lesser offer, or willing to take a bunch of sets in trade, that's an auction? If there is a group which is strictly for "this is the price, first person gets it and giving me this exact amount of money is (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
| |
|
structure, tough, decisions
(score: 6.220)
|
|
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
| (...) It's not -just- that, though... It's also that we don't have any "on-topic" type of debate group, just as for the longest time we didn't have any "on-topic" fun group. Uhh, that doesn't come out right. OK, what Shiri Dori wrote here: (URL) (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
| |
|
structure, tough, decisions
(score: 6.220)
|
|
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
| (...) Are the web sales part of Shop at Home? I was originally going to suggest Shop at Home, but then I thought about the web sales. Of course the other question is where do the LICs, outlets, etc. fall? Deals there probably should be posted in the (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
| |
|
structure, tough, decisions
(score: 6.220)
|
|
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
| (...) I'm concerned about seeing protracted debates in .general or other places. The .general group is (or should be) kept as "sacred" as possible as a friendly meeting spot. Well, .build should be even more sacred than general, for that matter, but (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
| |
|
structure, tough, decisions
(score: 6.220)
|
