Subject:
|
Re: Can we define flogging?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:15:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3934 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Frank Filz writes:
> Todd Lehman wrote in message ...
> > I'm feeling a lot of agreement with Frank's sentiment (and yours too, I
> > think). As time goes on, it seems that people are having a more and more
> > difficult time remembering the difference between auction and non-auction
> > w.r.t. the LTUA. I do believe that if the LTUA explicitly disallowed non-
> > auction flogs as well as auction-flogs outside of the market area, the total
> > amount of confusion and unhappiness could be lowered.
>
> Part of this is the way the rules are written of course, but there still is
> the problem of why auctions get special treatment. Resolving that issue will
> go a long ways towards greater harmony.
I think auctions get special treatment as an RTL reaction... auctions were the
most obvious "hated" traffic, so they were singled out. Now that they're out
of the way, some (most?) people are now expressing a similar distaste for any
market traffic, now that there is somewhere specific for market traffic to be.
> > Right now, when someone posts a misplaced auction flog, there are two
> > aspects open to debate: (1) Is it or is it not a flog? and (2) Is it or is
> > it not an auction? If the LTUA were changed to disallow all types of market
> > flogs, then this would reduce to only one aspect open to debate -- the first
> > one.
> >
> > The challenge would be (and let's open this up to suggestions) to define
> > flogging.
>
> Well, we can use a simple rule of "any market type post is a flog unless you
> can defend it".
Yes, although this wording sounds ripe for abuse, to me. But that might just
be my paranoid nature.
How about something along the lines of "No market-related posts outside the
market hierarchy (or groups that specifically allow them in the charter)
unless it is for clearly non-market purposes."
> > Finally, without diminshing the foregoing restrictions, an exception to
> > these two rules must allowed in the case of private organizations with
> > mailing lists hosted at LUGNET under an .org portion of the ng tree. These
> > organizations must be able to set and enforce their own rules w.r.t. flogs
> > -- allowing auctions and other market flogs if they so choose.
>
> Well, the T&C suggest that a group charter can override specific rules.
> Perhaps this just needs to be formalized a bit more.
Yah. The same exception room should be allowed for .loc groups, too. As an
example, you will find .b-s-t type traffic in loc.uk, and you will find
.shopping type traffic in .loc.ca, and I think that's a good thing.
<snipped a whole lot of good stuff about how to organize .market, because I
don't pay enough attention to it to have a significant opinion, beyond my
current "it's fine as is", of course.>
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
I'm getting paid for this --> alladvantage.com
Sign up via me, the reference $$ go to fund Lugnet.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Can we define flogging?
|
| Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) quasi-market-related (...) transactions. (...) whatever (...) cash. (...) From a market perspective, these types of posts probably belong in buy-sell-trade. I think it is reasonable to ask in shopping "could (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
