 | | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) in (...) and (...) the (...) a (...) Yes. It was only a matter of time before you came around to my way of thinking :-) Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) and (...) I wholeheartedly agree, and I'm glad someone else is jumping on this bandwagon (I'be been trumpetting this ideal for some time, though I don't think I'm the only one who has trumpetted this). Frank (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) It may be a function of which groups you hang out in, if you mostly hang out in the market groups (not saying you do), you won't see the chiding (my word for the day) that goes on by vigilantes (yesterday's word) as much. We all like to be (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) that the flaming about perceived rules breaking is (...) misplaced auction posts has occurred, but there sure has (...) any group so long as they relate to that groups purpose (...) postings). I have not seen too much of this - but I suppose I (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message ... (...) I like to keep people honest :-) I sincerely hope that the new TOU get resolved pretty soon. It seems to me that the flaming about perceived rules breaking is getting worse (over the past couple months, I (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) weak (...) but these posts were to different groups. I dunno about you, but my MO is to start reading a group that interests me from where I left off, till I reach the end, then dip into another one. Hence, the order posted, if fairly close (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) yet (inserted by Lar) (...) I forgot about that! EXCELLENT point, Frank. Smacks of vigilantism and of enforcing mores that aren't actually in effect (which phenomenon I am quite familiar with, living in Grand Rapids as I do, but I digress). (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) I agree. And conversely, when I want to buy something, it's generally technic, and would rather not wade through the other stuff. (24 years ago, 3-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) Ah... hmmm. First, as I tried to hint to you earlier, I don't really think that this post was necessarily nothing but a blatant flog. I did think it raised an interesting point to debate, though, because it would be easy to flog in this manner (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) So would I, especially now that we have the skip-filter in place. I think it would encourage people to post their sales in the proper theme market groups, and would let people looking for a specific theme filter those back *in*. For example, I (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) Also, I assume references to market sites in ones sigs will still be allowed assuming the sig itself is of reasonable size. One thought for Kevin and future posters of something like this, the post would be (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) So how would you "grade" this one? I see it as a big contribution to the theme group and not at all a flog. Eric, I think, sees it rather more like pure flog with little or no redeeming value. Some specific guidance from you, since you're the (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) It hasn't happened yet, no -- partially due to time and partially due to a few borderline examples that happened in April and May which confuse the issue. It's still the intention to adjust the TOU to keep blatant non-auction flogs out of the (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) I can see that someone might do this (although I wasn't intending to in this case), and I have mixed feelings about whether or not it would be OK. Including links to sales and auctions in a .sig has always been acceptable, to my understanding. (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) What on earth is this about??? Are you syaing you think he was trying to brak the "rules"? Or are you saying that you _personally_ to not like KW selling his LEGO this way? Scott A (24 years ago, 29-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) Well, you do, for one, or you wouldn't be posting. (...) Yup, I did. (...) I didn't tell him he has no right to sell it. In fact, I feel very strongly that he can sell any set he designs that he wants to, as I think I said here: (...) I think (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Eric Joslin writes: --<snip> (...) ship (...) Eric, Who cares? Did you know the more pictures he posts the more people can copy his ideas. If you do not want to buy the boat, don't by the boat. If in the process of designing (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) Oh, I see. Nice! It would be cool to have a different size of cannon on deck. (...) No. I just find it striking that one day you posted about how you had the ship for sale in .market.buy-sell-trade, and the next you posted in .pirate about how (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) The non-Lego pieces in it are the custom sails, which I believe many other people use as well. Lego sails just don't fit all sizes of ship. The reference to "brass" cannons (which was only in the description on the sale page, interestingly (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) I didn't say it wasn't. If you can't have afriendly disagreement with someone sometimes, it's hard to call them a friend. (...) Then how do you translate "brass"? I assumed he meant he had tooled them up from brasspiping and made them look (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) We quibble, but hey, quibbling's fun. I did read the advert, thanks. They're built up from "brass" not Brass. In the pics, they look like brickbuilt to me. What I did NOT spot at the time (and which you didn't either, I guess) was that the (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
<snip> (...) You do not think he is dishonest, you just doubt he is honest? What do you mean? I do not see what your point is? Is there anything wrong even with your worst interpretation of KW intentions? <snip> (...) A thing you'd never do or have (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
You can add "liar" to my list of charms, I guess, but you did ask a decent question.... (...) There are cannons on it built up from brass. Read the advert. (...) I was careful with my wording not to call him out-and-out dishonest. I have never dealt (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) Your eyes must be better than mine, or I haven't read the advert as closely as you have.... where are the non Lego pieces? (...) Seems mostly to be made of those 2 ships to me, although I wouldn't quibble about the odd piece here and there (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) Actually, I wasn't just talking about his .sig. (...) Yup. It's a neat model that A) Isn't wholly made of Lego pieces, let alone made only of two Armada Flagships (which makes me doubt how honestly he's representing his intentions, when he (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) (1) (...) It may well be an advert. So is everything else that appears in signatures that leads the reader to sites where one has things for sale. But a flog? Hardly. It's a neat model. Did you post to .terms because you think it's a violation (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 x Armada Flagship = Armada Warship
|
|
(...) bit of a flog for your sale. x-posted and FUT lugnet.admin.terms. eric (24 years ago, 28-Jun-00, to lugnet.pirates, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters
|
|
(...) be (...) A Detroit sale is EXTREMELY relevant to a loc.ca.on.<windsor> group, and vice versa. it seems like ALL of Windsor either works in SE michigan, works for a car company, and thus goes to SE michigan a lot on business, or just goes there (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Upcoming Terms of Use Agreement change
|
|
Where are we at on this? It looks like another wave of market posts appearing all over the place is starting. Frank (24 years ago, 13-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters (was:Re: Fabuland Auction Update 4)
|
|
(...) Whether (...) Indeed. But the problem with devolving any sort of power to only a limited number of groups is that other groups may also want it - or assume they already have it. Scott A (24 years ago, 5-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters (was:Re: Fabuland Auction Update 4)
|
|
(...) No, I said .loc.au was a was logical place, not that it was the right place. By "logical place" I mean that common sense might suggest that posting it there might make perfect sense (if someone was clueless about the T&C). (...) It's always (...) (24 years ago, 4-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters (was:Re: Fabuland Auction Update 4)
|
|
(...) Yep. Rule of law and all that. :) (24 years ago, 4-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters (was:Re: Fabuland Auction Update 4)
|
|
(...) BTW - I was rather bemused by this: So even though Mark was "right". He was wrong to break a rule which was wrong even though in doing so he was right? Scott A A more extreme example might be someone wanting to run an auction (...) (24 years ago, 4-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters
|
|
(...) Oh, dear. Of course they will - that is, if we ALLOW certain market posts in ALL of .loc.us there will be a HUGE amount of market posts. Personally, I think that market posts should be allowed in lower-level .loc groups (eg, .loc.us.ma, or (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters
|
|
(...) In practice - the unofficial rule-change in .loc.uk allowing some .market posts through concensous, has been quite easy to remember for me - essentially because I've been a part of that group. If you have nothing to do with a locality, then (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters (was:Re: Fabuland Auction Update 4)
|
|
(...) From a technical standpoint, it is a problem. But I think from a practical POV, it might not actually be a problem - if someone contributes to any group then they should have a say, regardless of nationality. If someone wanted to try and mess (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters
|
|
(...) I thought your first message, which I will paraphrase as "no .market type posts at all in .loc (and other) groups", while at first sounds quite reasonable in an A-R kind of way, completely falls apart when you consider .market.shopping. Many (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters (was:Re: Fabuland Auction Update 4)
|
|
Some thoughts: I don't want to see lugnet.loc.us turn into a jumble of market posts, which could happen if the default was to allow all types of market traffic in the loc groups. One way to handle it is allow the market posts in the loc groups by (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters (was:Re: Fabuland Auction Update 4)
|
|
(...) Wow, you nailed it! That's the feeling I'm beginning to get after reading recent messages from PeterC, PaulB, MarkH, ScottA, and others. To posit a question, how much harm would it do if all types of market traffic were allowed in .loc and (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters (was:Re: Fabuland Auction Update 4)
|
|
(...) I agree - while it wouldn't make sense for a group like .loc.us, for the smaller communities, where there is a _sense_of_community_, .market related posts are more welcome as you are most probably dealing with a friend. I've sent space parts (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters (was:Re: Fabuland Auction Update 4)
|
|
(...) people (...) might (...) A good idea. This would well suite posters to loc groups who do not speak English and only want to sell to their "local" area. It would also suit those who list items on ebay.de etc (German Language Ebay). EG: (URL) A (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters (was:Re: Fabuland Auction Update 4)
|
|
(...) A valid suggestion. My only problem with it (and this is my personal view) is that it is creating *another* group which requires monitoring. I'm actually looking at ways to *reduce* the number of groups (possibly because I'm lazy and can't be (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters (was:Re: Fabuland Auction Update 4)
|
|
I understand both Todd and Peter's thoughts, and agree with both... How about creating lugnet.market.loc.xyz groups if a sufficient number of people from that area are interested in a more targeted group. These groups would welcome all market posts (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Group Charters (was:Re: Fabuland Auction Update 4)
|
|
(...) .org-based groups (e.g., lugnet.org.us.nelug, lugnet.org.ca.vlc, etc.): yes with respect to market and related things (but obviously no with respect to issues of strict legalities, etc.); .loc-based and other groups: no. (...) Well, if you (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Group Charters (was:Re: Fabuland Auction Update 4)
|
|
(...) Todd, I've been musing over this for a while, and this latest incident is a perfect opportunity to raise it with you, and the Lugnet community. Whilst no-one is arguing that Mark has and continues to breach the Lugnet Terms and Conditions, I (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Fabuland Auction Update 4
|
|
(...) Mark, When you signed up, one of the things you agreed to is that you would not post auction announcements/update...flogs/spam in groups which do not explicitly welcome auctions in their charters. As you are well aware, only (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Upcoming Terms of Use Agreement change
|
|
(...) This is a Good Thing. (...) I've requested this before, but I think it got lost somewhere in the noise of .admin.general: when you make changes to the ToUA, could you post either a follow-up or a Supersede to the original ToUA? The reason is (...) (24 years ago, 25-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Upcoming Terms of Use Agreement change
|
|
(...) As much as I hate doing this... Me too. I think it'll lead to less misunderstanding. -Shiri (24 years ago, 25-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Upcoming Terms of Use Agreement change
|
|
(...) Good. This makes a lot of sense. (24 years ago, 25-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Upcoming Terms of Use Agreement change
|
|
All, It's long been a point of confusion in the LUGNET Terms of Use Agreement, (URL) or not non-auction market traffic is permitted or verboten in non-market groups. The agreement doesn't specifically state that non-auction flogs (i.e., (...) (24 years ago, 25-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.announce) !
|
| |
| | Re: Question
|
|
I don't mind very short pointer type posts if it is specific to the theme- based group (eg "got some train stuff for sale, see...). I just hate the 5 million re:s. SteveB (...) (24 years ago, 17-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Auczilla XI
|
|
(...) Certainly don't want to stirr up trouble, but I would assume that this thread really doesn't belong outside of lugnet.market.auction (in some ways even more so than an actual auction announcement, because this has extremely little value to (...) (24 years ago, 17-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms) !
|
| |
| | Re: Question
|
|
(...) A suggestion for this future (based on some comments I've seen on rec.toys.lego recently) -- what about creating sub-market groups corresponding to the major non-market groups? lugnet.market.buy-se...ade.castle (...) (24 years ago, 17-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Question
|
|
(...) I don't know if there's going to be an official process for a vote for this in the future, but if you're just interested in straw-poll type numbers, you can add me to the people who think this change would be for the best. eric (24 years ago, 16-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: C'mon already...
|
|
(...) I suppose if I had a choice, this group would be what I'd prefer, but e-mail would certainly be fine too. --Todd (24 years ago, 16-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
I'm posting from tree view so just picked one to hang my post on. First let me say that Frank's proposed guidelines/rules are better this iteration than ever, he's really getting good at it! (...) I think this one is... and I'll tell you why. A (...) (24 years ago, 16-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: C'mon already...
|
|
(...) On that note, I'm thinking that Richard's request would have been better suited for email, no? But in case you can't be reached that way, is this the group you'd prefer people try for last ditch admin-ish contact, or a different one? Or is it (...) (24 years ago, 16-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Question
|
|
(...) Yes, please do make this change. Almost anything that increases consistency and reduces the need for judgement is a good thing, IMHO. While you're at it, perhaps some of the other changes batted around recently that almost gelled could be (...) (24 years ago, 16-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Question
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Todd Lehman writes: <snip> (...) Great! It would, really. -Shiri (24 years ago, 15-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Question
|
|
(...) Posting for-sale notices outside of the .market area isn't currently verboten by the written rules of LUGNET Terms of Use Agreement per se, but flogs posted outside of the .market area are still frowned upon by many people. And the .trains (...) (24 years ago, 15-Apr-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
(...) {some snippage} (...) Todd, I cannot agree with you here. Auctions have competition when multiple bidders are present--this may not happen in all auction cases. And when some bidders have more money, desire, etc to buy with than others--well (...) (24 years ago, 15-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) of (...) original (...) to (...) Perhaps something on the lines of: ---...--- Posts offering items for sale, trade, auction, or "wanted" posts, or anything else related to "market" type activities are (...) (24 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms) !
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) spaceship (...) that's (...) other (...) different (...) Gotta agree with Todd here, but a counter example which is probably ok is something like the following: : Check out (URL) for pictures of the huge (...) (24 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
(...) I can only speak for myself here, I'd find that extremely annoying, if that's all the post said -- especially without a more explicit pointer to the other list. Yet, even with a more explicit pointer, it wouldn't sound any different to me as a (...) (24 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
(...) I suppose it depends on what standard one sees as being doubled. Normally the term applies to cases where there shouldn't be a double standard, like sexes or races. In this case, if the standard is "selling" or "flogging," then, yes, it's a (...) (24 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
(...) "I desperately need a few 2x4x3 flibber-globbits (any color) for spaceship I'm working on. If you've got some, check out my post in .market.bst." Ok in .space? (24 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
(...) Yup, I agree. I was mostly speaking to the .theme groups, I suppose. They are more inherently discussion - the .loc groups are a different mammal, in several ways. (...) Well, ok. I've noted which groups I feel are appropriate below... (...) (...) (24 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
(...) For the record, I agree with Mike on this one. (24 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
<frank's well thought words snipped> (...) or (...) I do not pretend to speak for everyone. The problem for me is that I can not discernbetween trade/sale/auction posts. They are all the same to me. I attribute a value to a set I want, if I can get (...) (24 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
(...) Not really. Seller run auctions create more traffic because of the constant updates, but ebay auction announcements are usually a single or 2 shot deal. Many B-S-T posts fall in that level of traffic. Yet, many people seem to dislike ebay (...) (24 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
(...) I think there is, and I chose that word/phrase because I thought it would indicate that it is a potentially charged issue. People are forbidden to post auctions to any group but .market.auction. People can post "I'm selling this ..." messages (...) (24 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms) !
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
<snipped much text that I completely agree with> (...) Precisely. I dislike seeing b-s-t posts in theme-NGs just as much as I dislike auction posts (1). I'd be happy to add anything, but Mike said it all. -Shiri (1) I do not completely dislike them, (...) (24 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) traffic (...) exist, (...) to (...) I think there is a "double standard" in that auction posts are singled out as particularly bad. This is not necessarily a bad thing (we also have a "double standard" on (...) (24 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: C'mon already...
|
|
(...) no... (...) yes. (URL) I request that the ban be lifted. Not because I have anything to say in that (...) The block is now removed. --Todd (24 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | C'mon already...
|
|
Todd: Don't you think that my continuing to be banned from "Dear-Lego" is sort of overkill? I did already ask to have my full lugnet posting privileges reinstated, but perhaps you did not notice...wasn't the ban to be lifted upon my request? I (...) (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Reminder: auction announcements in .market.auction only
|
|
Sorry. :-) "Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:Fsv926.EE4@lugnet.com... (...) explicitly (...) (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
guito <guito@guito.dhs.org> wrote in message news:slrn8f6lu7.ebp....ome.com... (...) solicitations. (...) As of _now_ there have been 102 posts to .auction and 103 to .bst in the last 7 days. If you add to that the trade posts dotted around all the (...) (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
(...) I disagree that there is a "double-standard" (but that's just wording), but I agree that it would go a long way toward eliminating gray areas -- if the boundaries could be defined clearly (which I'm very skeptical of). Some things to figure (...) (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms) !
|
| |
| | Reminder: auction announcements in .market.auction only
|
|
(...) Reminder: Auction announcements should go only into groups which explicitly allow for them in their charters (currently only .market.auction). (URL) (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.market.shopping, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
(...) Auctions create a lot more traffic than regular sales. At least thats what I've always thought was the reason (it's the reason why I don't read RTL anymore, anyway). They clutter up a newsgroup. Maybe Todd feels the same way? (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
(...) <snipped bits> (...) I generally try to avoid "me too" posts, but wanted to do so here, and add some reasoning. I agree with Mike. My personal preference is to not see any market traffic unless I go looking for it.(1) Also, if the double (...) (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
|
(...) messages (...) aren't (...) I keep being amused in a confused kind of way by this seeming double standard. Let me demonstrate how this bst vs auction double standard sounds to me. Some (maybe a lot, maybe just a few really "valuable") people (...) (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms) !
|
| |
| | Re: FT: King's Castle 6080
|
|
(...) Right, sorry. -Shiri (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: FT: King's Castle 6080
|
|
(...) That's not actually true. Only auctions are verboten outside of the .market .auction group by the Terms of Use Agreement. Non-auction solicitations aren't strictly verboten by the Agreement, but generally they're frowned upon by most people. (...) (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Horizontal scrolling while posting? (was: Re: whoop de doo)
|
|
(...) Hmm, that sounds very odd. What screen resolution do you run at (640x480?) and what font size do you use (higher than 12 pt?)? --Todd (24 years ago, 8-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) Good. All understood and completely clear in my mind. Now I simply have to adjust my lugnet HTTP viewing habits away from the nested/compact thread display view to the linear/all thread view. Now, if I could just figure out how to adjust the (...) (24 years ago, 8-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) d'OH!!! My bad! Now I see what was causing you the confusion! The "compact" and "brief" thread views aren't supposed to have the "Submit Ratings" button on them. The thread display routine doesn't currently check what display mode it's (...) (24 years ago, 8-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) Okay, my problem is not me and it is not a browser problem (Netscape v4.51). The problem is that I have been using (for months) the nested/compact thread display. I guess to make this Submit All rating feature work, I need to switch to the (...) (24 years ago, 8-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) nono -- it's not useless at all -- what the button simply means is "apply all of the radio button selections currently visible on this HTML page." (...) You -can- rate messages one at a time, but it's not required, no. (...) It can be used for (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) Disagree. (...) This is not so. If you click on the submit button, whether it's for one post or for a whole tree worth, whatever ratings you have set will be reapplied (unless it's a very large tree, as I said before), because you do a POST. (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) Okay, I think I understand. So, right now the submit ratings button on a thread display page is useless and serves no purpose, as I understand you. I guess we are all resigned to submit individual ratings on a per-message basis (not a (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) Hmm. There actually isn't any next-post icon in the light blue band. Do you mean that you clicked an underlined number in the light blue band to proceed to the next message? If so, that causes an HTTP GET request, not an HTTP post request. (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) (URL) -- to an excessive extent! (Note that Alan's post 1520 was 3 minutes before (...) I do not know why Alan did what he did, but there may be reason. I will concede that 83 messages is a bit excessive, however. Anyway, I just used Alans (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) Susan -- thanks. Very Interesting. --Todd (24 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) If it helps you figure it out any, I think Alan was trying out the technique mentioned in this post: (URL) -- to an excessive extent! (Note that Alan's post 1520 was 3 minutes before the string of 108 messages started.) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) :) thanks (...) If it were thousands, I sure would. I'd probably ask you first, even. :) But I can definitely see the possibility of someone not even thinking twice about posting several dozen short messages to a .test group. In between (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) Ahh, but you're special. No doubts in my mind that if you or DanB or JeremyS (for example) had done it, you'd've had a good solid reason. And if you weren't just bored and playing around, I'll bet you'd mention ahead of time that you were (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.test, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: whoop de doo
|
|
(...) Step 1 is to disable his posting ability to that group ASAP -- nobody needs to post 108 messages -- many all the same exact copy -- to test any of those things shown above. If it turns out later that Alan had a legitimate reason to do what he (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.test, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Podracing bucket contents revealed . . .
|
|
(...) Ewwww... (...) No, but it is a Fight Club!!! Now where's Brad Pitt, I want to bash his face in! ;-) ~Nathan (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
