 | | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) What part of the TOU is ambiguous? It says "It is a condition of your use of the discussion groups that you do not: (X)" - meaning that if you do X then you may not be allowed to use the discussion groups. Are there any other parts of the TOU (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Possibly prohibited. I don't see it that way, even without clarification (...) I saw the cite the last time, thanks. I do appreciate the re-citation just in case I didn't see it (although I responded directly to it), but I think the quote of (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) snip (...) I was referring to the fact that FTX and images within posts are prohibited by the (URL) TOU>. A reasonable person who has been posting to LUGNET for years might know that the TOU is badly out of date and no longer reflects reality. (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Seems to me like it might be a good idea. Probably ought to go on the list of things to look into post code freeze and I'll so recommend. (...) I think that might be a bit strongly worded... "remiss" sounds so pejorative. (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) We have not developed one. Hopefully there won't really be a need but if there is, (that is, if someone gets timed out and then sends a note to the admins contesting the decision) we would either look at it again, ad-hoc, or develop one. We (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) If they don't receive a note because of an inadvertant TOS violation (forgetting to update their email), is there an email address they can contact you (collectively) on? If so, that email should probably be included on the 441 message page. (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Agreed. There are a number of relatively small things that need clarification, revision, expansion or elaboration. But I think these are all at the margins, the main thrust is clear. (...) I scratched my head about this for a bit, as I wasn't (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
Admins - Thanks for posting this outside of .admin so that everyone sees it. The Terms of Use need to be updated to reflect this new policy as well as some other changes. For example, both your post and my reply are against the TOU: 8. (do not) Post (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Yes, I know. But Todd has been notably absent from LUGNET, and Suz completely so, for quite some time and anarchy has prevailed. Hopefully this new power to be wielded by the TT can do some good. (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Just out of curiosity, is there any sort of appeal process? For example, if Lar doesn't think that his hypothetical 24-hour Timeout is appropriate, can he request a review of the decision, or is the decision considered to have been reviewed (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) As do I, but realistically, it will need to happen at some point, as we've all seen increased instances where something like this will be necessary. I don't think the "threat" of a timeout is sufficient, the actuality of it will need to be (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) I believe that LUGNET should have this right as well. Almost every other usergroup or discussion board I read has the ability to ban posts from users or IPs. Administrators in some of these other boards do not seem to adhere to a (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) SNIP (...) I would like to thank the LUGNET Transition Team, those listed here as well as those not listed, for their continued efforts on behalf of the AFOL Community. I also hope that the mere mention of this new policy and consequences (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Sure, np - I wasn't trying to second-guess, just to guess what it was actually set to, since news-by-mail doesn't reflect that, and I wasn't feeling adventerous enough to look up the msg itself on the server. (...) Right, the process seems ok, (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Kelly set .terms on purpose, by the precedent that Suz set when she announced ((URL) the "New Policy on Bickering in LUGNET Newsgroups", not by mistake. I've reset the FUT there to keep things together (there is already another followup there) (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) The ability to give time outs has been there (and has been used, in rare cases) for a long time. What has changed is the process for doing so and who is authorised to do it. (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
Finally! Good move. Should've been done long ago. Hopefully this will restore civility to LUGNET. (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
LUGNET administration has always had the ability to temporarily or permanently suspend the posting privileges of a user or member. In the past this has been only very rarely used. The mechanism for doing so was such that only Todd (or for a time, (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.announce, lugnet.general, FTX) !!
|
| |
| | Re: SWM AFOL in Boston seeking SF
|
|
(...) Ahh, but Leonard - you missed the point. I never said it did not belong on Lugnet, and I never said it did not belong in .people - did I? (...) I think you are also missing the entire point of Lugnet and posting messages to Lugnet -- Lugnet it (...) (20 years ago, 27-Sep-04, to lugnet.people.singles, lugnet.admin.suggestions, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: SWM AFOL in Boston seeking SF
|
|
(...) Ahh, but Mark.. you missed the charter of lugnet.people: "lugnet.people– All about LEGO® people (enthusiasts, fans, maniacs, collectors, builders, etc.)" And since Todd is clearly a "LEGO people" - any post about Todd should be on-topic for (...) (20 years ago, 26-Sep-04, to lugnet.people.singles, lugnet.admin.suggestions, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: SWM AFOL in Boston seeking SF
|
|
(...) Todd, As much as I wish you luck on your search - can you explain why this does not belong in off-topic? I draw your attention to the group charter of off-topic: "Off-topic (non-LEGO®) discussions" - this is what your post was, non-LEGO® (...) (20 years ago, 26-Sep-04, to lugnet.people.singles, lugnet.admin.suggestions, lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Profanity again
|
|
(...) Perhaps we could have implictly undestord code word substitutes for certain rude words. For example blasphous exclaimations could be replaced by "MegaBlok" and of couese, the word in question by "bley" (also a four letters) or the alternative (...) (20 years ago, 13-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Profanity again
|
|
(...) LOL Fat chance with Richard hopping about. ROSCO (20 years ago, 9-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Profanity again
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) Rats! I was just nuking the popcorn and getting comfy in my Laz-E-boy, preparing myself for the 'entertaining posts' to come... ;p Admins, you're doing a bang-up job. Thankfully, from what (...) (20 years ago, 9-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Profanity again
|
|
(...) Not *that* passionate, in my view and in the view of the other admins as stated here: (URL) I'm not advocating usage of profanity in (...) Dave subsequently requested a cancel of the post, and reposted without the profanity. As for John's use (...) (20 years ago, 9-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Profanity again
|
|
(...) And whereas I'd agree on a moral ground, having been a person who doesn't like to use profanity in everyday discourse, I do think that things said in o.t-d can get a little passionate. I'm not advocating usage of profanity in every post, but, (...) (20 years ago, 9-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Profanity again
|
|
Looks like the problem has returned: (URL) Dave! could have made this comment in a more appropriate manner. Besides, John could have meant "frick'n" instead of the other f-word. Adr. (20 years ago, 9-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | profanity
|
|
(...) I can live without the profanity. Scott A (20 years ago, 17-Aug-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad Ventura goes to Brickfest
|
|
(...) (URL) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad Ventura goes to Brickfest
|
|
(...) I don't nkow how to change it, that's why I didn't. If you could tell me how... (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Tente-a-plenty!
|
|
(...) I fully agree with Dave!. Keep all the clone info inside OT.Clones rather than holding too strict to the TOS and making things un-smooth. If it's that bad to post a non-market group (hey, it's worked just fine for ages!), then why not create a (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jun-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Tente-a-plenty!
|
|
(...) It's certainly something that can be discussed. The Lugnet transition team will be exploring this issue some. Todd and Suzanne had expressed a desire for all market posting to occur in the lugnet.market hierarchy, but there has long been (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Tente-a-plenty!
|
|
(...) I know that this is correct by the letter of the TOS, but can we put it to a vote, at least? I think both purists and clone-fans alike would be well served to allow clone auction info in OT.Clones, rather than letting them get lost in the (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Tente-a-plenty!
|
|
(...) Please confine auction announcements to lugnet.market.auction per (URL) the Terms of Use> (See Discussion Group Terms and Conditions item #11). Auctions of clone brand products are allowed in lugnet.market.auction so long as they are (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) I agree. But under the circumstances what else could I do? Scott A (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Me too. Where are we, anyhow? I don't think I've ever been here before. (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) The day after I said I'd check out the FUT and I didn't. Eh, whatever. For my money, forwarding things out of o-t.d to 'admin-whatever' is much like running to the teacher on the playground during recess--Getting the 'grown up' figure to (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) This is the point where debating loses its 'joy' for me. Can we please leave the 'directed at specific individuals' and the 'could be misconstrued but I'll take it in the worst posible way' attacks out of o-t.d (though I'm sure someone'll dig (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
Can anyone tell me exactly what this is achieving? Is there any sort of aim to these attacks on me? Is this “constructive” Don? Should I just ignore him? Is his behavior acceptable? Is he obsessed by me? Should I be flattered by the attention? (URL) (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) You called me a liar. All I'm asking is that you either justify that or apologise. It is that simple; it is a matter of etiquette. This is the last time I intend to ask. (...) Have you read your posts over the last 48 hours? At one point 7 out (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote: (snip) I explained what happened, I admitted fault, and I apologised for it. If it doesn't fit the format of the apology you want, or doesn't fit the facts as you imagine them to be, tough. Take it or (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: ------( Terms of use for lugnet.com )------
|
|
Emmmm .... un'anima buona che lo traduca in italiano? grazie ... Giuliano (21 years ago, 13-Jan-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | over the edge
|
|
Personally, I think the language used in this post is over the edge of what should be tolerated. (URL) post may be cancelled by the time anyone is a postion of authority reads this, but the f-word is being used rather blatently. Ray (21 years ago, 19-Nov-03, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Getting the Newness Out;-)
|
|
(...) XFUT to admin.terms Changing people's FTX code can apparently be done without it being detectable (in the web interface), unless you do a reply or view original/raw form to see the underlying FTX. (an eyeball view of John's original post and (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.test, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Spam
|
|
(...) No, it certainly doesn't. The reason it got in is because it came in through the lego-robotics@crynwr.com mailing list gateway, and LUGNET's news server trusts the mail gateway not to forward spam. Russell has a sign-up filter (or something) (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Matrix:Reloaded " & "X2 :X-Men United" available in DVD now
|
|
(...) Hm. Something tells me this doesn't belong here. Of course, as long as it is, I figured I'd have a little fun with it. I suspect my version will be received a bit more graciously than the original... (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Which is it; time machine or plagiarism?
|
|
(...) his work. I (...) Well let's hope the Gaston Gazette does not find out. ;) (...) I must be paranoid; I thought it was I who was being baited. But, I admit, I should not have responded. :( Scott A (22 years ago, 25-Mar-03, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Which is it; time machine or plagiarism?
|
|
(...) Plagarism is not; copyright infringement is. (...) Scott, I advise you to please stop baiting Larry eand to read this as well: (URL) (22 years ago, 25-Mar-03, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Which is it; time machine or plagiarism?
|
|
(...) Sinner: repent ye because ye have sinned! The "sin": Larry [2003]: (URL) someone observed to Winston Churchill that his predecessor as prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, was a humble man, Churchill is reported to have replied, "And he has so (...) (22 years ago, 25-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Would I be incorrect?
|
|
(...) I am not in disagreement with what you say Frank. I had to do a bit of thinking and reading group charters before I offered my suggestion. Personally, if I were trying to sell something I would not want the announcement lost in Off-Topic (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Would I be incorrect?
|
|
(...) Hmm, this is one of the things which needs to be clarified. Recent direction has suggested that all buy/sell/trade/auction traffic occur in the market groups (and org groups as specifically allowed by charter). I went looking for discussion on (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Would I be incorrect?
|
|
(...) Reference: (URL) for asking before posting. At this time, the Charter for market.buy-sell-trade does not allow for non-Lego items. However, you can trade all kinds of goods in exchange for Lego. The group ot-clones has been set up to (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Advertising on lugnet
|
|
(...) How 'bout a .robotics.ads or .robotics.buy-sell-trade? :-) TJ (22 years ago, 31-Oct-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Advertising on lugnet
|
|
(...) It might also help to initiate discussion within the group. .robotics is effectively an external group, and to some extent should set it's own charter (of course if it sets a direction which is incompatible with Lugnet then it might be time to (...) (22 years ago, 31-Oct-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Advertising on lugnet
|
|
(...) It's not my place to say for sure, but I don't think so. I know Suz is very busy right now (weddings and their aftermath tend to do that) and may just not have had a chance to fire off a note. As I said in my last reply, I think perhaps (...) (22 years ago, 31-Oct-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | 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) !!
|
| |
| | Re: Sell: 18" huge Display Lego for sale!! Total 6 ifferent types!
|
|
(...) Spam. Yet another matter of internet life, and yet, how I can't stand it! Thankfully, the lugnet FAQ and the TOS prohibit spamming, so I hopefully won't have to see any of it here. Linking this to the main market page would definitely be a (...) (22 years ago, 21-May-02, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Sell: 18" huge Display Lego for sale!! Total 6 ifferent types!
|
|
(...) Ditto. (...) Well we've had discussion in the past on whether behavioural things ought to be FAQ entries or what, but if these guidelines seem well received, even if not codified as formal rules, linking to them from the main market page and (...) (22 years ago, 21-May-02, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Sell: 18" huge Display Lego for sale!! Total 6 ifferent types!
|
|
(...) I like these. I wouldn't change a thing. All types of posts seem to be covered. Well thought out, Frank. How to implement is another matter. Certainly, if these guidelines are to be implemented as rules, they could be listed or linked on the (...) (22 years ago, 21-May-02, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Sell: 18" huge Display Lego for sale!! Total 6 ifferent types!
|
|
(...) Hmm, good question. First it is probably worth exploring when repeat postings are acceptable, so some thoughts on that: A second post about an auction on a site such as eBay may be made during the final 24 hours of the auction. Note that due (...) (22 years ago, 21-May-02, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Sell: 18" huge Display Lego for sale!! Total 6 ifferent types!
|
|
I agree that seeing the repeated posting is irritating. How would you word such guidance? (looking for suggestions) Also, note that the Marketplace idea I had would create an ideal place for (...) (22 years ago, 21-May-02, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Sell: 18" huge Display Lego for sale!! Total 6 ifferent types!
|
|
(...) Wow, he waited a whole 9 days this time... I suppose in some ways once a week or so is ok, but in thinking about the new TOS for market posts, it might be worth thinking about giving a bit more guidance and frequency of posting. FUT: (...) (22 years ago, 16-Apr-02, to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Sale at The Vault this week!
|
|
(...) S@H specials would also not belong in .shopping if it is for places with a retail outlet. What is the difference between The Vault and S@H? (...) There may need to be a place to discuss issues with BrickLink and general discussion of brick (...) (22 years ago, 21-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Sale at The Vault this week!
|
|
(...) .b-s-t (...) operation, (...) I had always assumed that .shopping was for reports for / from stores with actual physical retail operations (storefronts), and that everything else went into .bst. Todds comments about The Vault seem to refute (...) (22 years ago, 20-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Sale at The Vault this week!
|
|
(...) From whom? Hopefully not an admin. (...) it. I just did, in fact. .brickshops clearly (to my way of thinking) is about operations, not flogging. It's another group just like .shipping and .services and .theory While the hood is up on the (...) (22 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Sale at The Vault this week!
|
|
(...) posted (...) Tom - as far as I know there has been no official answer as to the proper place to post BrickLink sales info. I think we're getting closer to a ruling :) (URL)To me, .brickshops is more about discussing the running of brickshops, (...) (22 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Sale at The Vault this week!
|
|
And yet a further question - I used to post all my Brickbay info in b-s-t. I hadn't posted for months, added some sets, some discounts, some parts, so I posted in b-s-t. I got a private email telling me I shouldn't do that, to post to .brickshops. (...) (22 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Sale at The Vault this week!
|
|
(...) I think that's pretty big of you to apologise and I commend you for it. My take on this is that despite fairly clear statements (those that Kevin dug up, for example) there's still room for confusion, because the charters could admit of some (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Sale at The Vault this week!
|
|
I stand corrected and apologize. I should have done some research on this. -Jon -- | The Galactic Shipyard - (URL) My Lego Creations - (URL) Attack of the Bricks - (URL) Salm" <kdsalm@dreamscape.com> wrote in message news:Gur14H.CwM@lugnet.com... (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Sale at The Vault this week!
|
|
(...) I have just done a bit more digging and found that Todd Lehman spelled out the usage of .shopping by vendors and The Vault in particular --> (URL) few messages later, Frank Filz gives his insight as to the distinction between .b-s-t and (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Sale at The Vault this week!
|
|
XFUT: lugnet.admin.terms (...) Hi Jon. According to the charter for .market.shopping [1] these types of announcemnts are allowed and should not be problematic. Here is exactly how the charter for .shopping reads: ++CHARTER/PURPOSE: (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, lugnet.market.shopping, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Sell: 18" Display Lego Figures!! 6 different types!
|
|
(...) Yup, I was just about to do so. but thanks for pointing it out. -Suz (22 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Sell: 18" Display Lego Figures!! 6 different types!
|
|
This message has been posted repeatedly over the past several days, in violation of the LUGNET terms of service. Please stop. --Bill. XFUT: lugnet.admin.terms (...) (22 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Market posts and TOS
|
|
(...) I agree, Frank. I'm working on eliminating the holdup now. Expect an announcement about this soon. -Suz LUGNET Admin (23 years ago, 14-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Market posts and TOS
|
|
<rwebb@enohspamaltavista.net> wrote in message news:Gpxx64.3FL@lugnet.com... (...) for (...) Or perhaps lugnet.people-who-ac...ugnet-turn ing-into-usenet? At least that's what my post was. Taking the previous posts as a hypothetical situation and (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Market posts and TOS
|
|
Hi all I think I need to reply to this with more than "sorry". My first thought was that two words ought to suffice. But where's the proportion in all of this ? Yes, I've posted to the .market tree before, BUT have never really digested that (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Market posts and TOS (was Re: Black Cat 5571 + 5563 + 5561)
|
|
(...) This is too bad. If he's been following LUGNET for this long, he does [most likely] know better. This is exactly the attitude we DON'T need on LUGNET - people flaunting the charters and disrespecting other groups for their financial gain. (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Market posts and TOS (was Re: Black Cat 5571 + 5563 + 5561)
|
|
This is a pretty good example of how telling people where to post stuff doesn't do much good. I don't know Ronan myself, but I think he has been around for quite some time. The People listing shows that he has been a lugnet member since 23-Nov-2000. (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Market posts and TOS (was Re: Black Cat 5571 + 5563 + 5561)
|
|
(...) I second this wholeheartedly. (...) Too bad its taken this long. It should have been changed a while ago. -Tim (23 years ago, 14-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Market posts and TOS (was Re: Black Cat 5571 + 5563 + 5561)
|
|
(...) There has been talk for ages about changing the TOS to disallow market posts outside the .market hierarchy (presumably they would remain ok in org groups as those groups desire, and shopping tips would remain ok in the .loc groups), and Suz (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms) !
|
| |
| | Re: Bionicle Avatar pictures flooding BrickShelf
|
|
(...) I guess his opinion on the matter is different. All posts are not always going to be shunted to the optimal topic header and that's OK. All the moderation, curating, good intentions or FREAKING OUT in the world is going to change that. If it (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
