 | | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) I think the problem is the way it's presented. Please, don't ever tell people not to talk about it. Telling people "this decision is final, don't discuss it anymore" is very stand-offish. You're right, the decision may indeed be final, but at (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) LUGNET is not a democracy. A members association could be. Cheers Richie Dulin (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) And as part of the admin staff, what are you going to do about this 'crux'? Wishing it away will not make it go away. Whereas I may agree that 'the community' may need to 'cut some slack' (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> We haven't really seen 'em, so how can we tell if they're incorrect? It's a matter of trust. Well, a prime minister of some country got on the telly last night and talked about (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) Nicely said, Larry. However, wouldn't you agree that, in specific instances (especially as we've seen recently) that there needs to be debate, especially since if there's a perceived (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) PS, that's just the sort of "picking at every word" (questioning "endless" when you know what was meant) that deters participation. (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Sorry, that was rhetoric. LUGNET is not infinite so there never has been an "endless" one. But there have been lots of interminable ones, don't you agree? (...) For a "made up" example The decision would be "person A gets a timeout of 48 hours (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) I think we are getting to the crux here, but I will go back over the rest of the post later, and see if there's anything I think warrants further examination. (...) Please point me to an endless debate. (...) Of course. (...) OK, I'm not (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) I was referring to the whole thing. What specifically do you disagree with? This is an important point that bears repeating: " endless debate (about specific reviewing actions) has proven (in many many other places, not just here) not to be (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) I'm not sure exactly which part you're referring to so I'll just look at the last paragraph. I agree debate is not going to change the initial decision, but it CAN point out fallacies in the decision process that could lead ANOTHER decision (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
