 | | Re: Advertising on lugnet
|
|
I note that the same lugnet user is again advertising in lugnet.robotics; (URL) no action has obviously been taken since this person last advertised in this news group a few weeks ago, am I to take it that this group is now available for (...) (22 years ago, 31-Oct-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Advertising on lugnet
|
|
(...) I agree. Further while I think some tolerance is appropriate for non LUGNET(tm) users, (and I veer way out into the hypothetical here) someone who is a LUGNET user but posts commercial stuff that way as a loophole exploitation should be called (...) (22 years ago, 16-Oct-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Advertising on lugnet
|
|
I understand that some postings on lugnet.robotics arrive via the lego-robotics@crynwr.com service and I think that is a valuable connection which should be retained despite the slim possibility that it may result in a breach of the terms and (...) (22 years ago, 16-Oct-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Advertising on lugnet
|
|
(...) I think the intent is that it is not, unless the group specifically allows it. See this thread (this is a post from the middle... but it has a proposed clarification in terms that seemed to be well received and that addresses this very point) (...) (22 years ago, 16-Oct-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Advertising on lugnet
|
|
I recently noticed an unabashed advertisment placed in the robotics group and I've been trying to figure out if advertising is appropriate or not in those kinds of groups (as opposed to the market areas). The terms of use state; Discussion Group (...) (22 years ago, 16-Oct-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Question: Why allow postings of lego.direct on lugnet at all?
|
|
(...) Thanks for the clarification, Richie... I confess when I penned that screed I hadn't gone and checked the charter, I was working from memory. But I think you'd agree that a loc group has a more well defined set of users than a non specific (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.loc.au)
|
| |
| | Re: Question: Why allow postings of lego.direct on lugnet at all?
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Larry Pieniazek writes: [snip] (...) .loc.au has been tolerant of such posts (i.e. the natives don't complain). However, such posts are definitely not techically allowed. This was confirmed in July (see (URL) ) and as recently (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.loc.au)
|
| |
| | Re: MY CUSTOM MODELS NOW FOR SALE!!
|
|
(...) Except for (URL) of course. Cheers Richie Dulin (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.loc.au)
|
| |
| | Market Terms Modification (Was Re: Question: Why allow postings of lego.direct)
|
|
(...) I like it 100%. It is more concise than I could write, too. __Kevin Salm__ (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Question: Why allow postings of lego.direct on lugnet at all?
|
|
(...) probably needed is a parallel to 11 that deals with non auction "offers for sale" posts, ne? (...) How about something similar to this: (11a?). (do not) Post offers or announcements of items for sale, offers to buy, wanted notices, offers to (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Question: Why allow postings of lego.direct on lugnet at all?
|
|
Alas... (...) true. (...) Do folks have any suggestions for re-wording of number 11 of T&C: (URL) you come up with something concrete and reasonable, I'll only need to edit the text and write an announcement to publish an update. right? But if it (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Question: Why allow postings of lego.direct on lugnet at all?
|
|
(...) I would point out that currently posting any market posting other than an auction posting anywhere within Lugnet is not against the TOS. It is against the clear desires and directions of the admins and the community (so a post or e-mail asking (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: New Policy on Bickering in LUGNET Newsgroups
|
|
(...) That seems a bit heavy-handed. Omitting information that is useful or helpful or necessary to others is annoying, but not subject to any negative action, IMO. I don't like posts that only give me half the story or omit crucial details any more (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: New Policy on Bickering in LUGNET Newsgroups
|
|
(...) This area of my query was in relation to it occuring repeatedly by the same person...once is OK, twice: maybe they need to be informed that this sort of information is needed, and if they do it a third time, maybe time-out isn't such a bad (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: New Policy on Bickering in LUGNET Newsgroups
|
|
(...) While it's true that omitting locale from sale information is a practice to be discouraged, I'm not sure it fits the intended definition of "unhelpful posts" that was given. At least not in my view it doesn't. It's hard to see how someone (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.loc.au)
|
| |
| | Re: New Policy on Bickering in LUGNET Newsgroups
|
|
(...) Just a minor query on this...will this new policy prevent people in their .loc.??? groups posting messages using what is considered normal language in their own countries, but that others in different countries may not appreciate, or will it (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.loc.au)
|
| |
| | Re: New Policy on Bickering in LUGNET Newsgroups
|
|
(...) Sad don't you think that we all can't act like Adult Fans Of LEGO... But if you act like a naughty child, so be it for your punishment. Negative comments in discussion to a personal nature DO nothing to establish a point and just demoralize (...) (22 years ago, 27-May-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: New Policy on Bickering in LUGNET Newsgroups
|
|
(...) I agree with the new policy about 80-90%. It's just too bad it came to this; having to negatively sanction unfriendliness in the once-Friendliest Place On the Web. There's also a lot of grey area when it comes to arbitrary connotations like (...) (22 years ago, 25-May-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: New Policy on Bickering in LUGNET Newsgroups
|
|
In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes: [lots of snipping. sorry] Well, I think this is an excellent idea, and it's about time a new TOS policy was enacted. The time out idea is quite feasible, in my opinion, and I really think this new policy (...) (22 years ago, 24-May-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | New Policy on Bickering in LUGNET Newsgroups
|
|
Effective immediately, the LUGNET administration is enacting a new policy aimed at cutting down on bickering in the newsgroups. We understand that emotions and impulses can come into play when things get heated. In times like that, it's often (...) (22 years ago, 24-May-02, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.admin.terms) !!
|
