|
|
 | | 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)
|
|
