Subject:
|
Re: New Policy on Bickering in LUGNET Newsgroups
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Sun, 16 Jun 2002 02:24:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
7776 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Benjamin Whytcross writes:
> In lugnet.admin.terms, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > 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 inadvertantly omitting that information from their post is doing
> > it in order to cause difficulty.
> >
> >
> 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 idea?
>
> Just my thoughts,
> Benjamin Whytcross
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 than you.
I think the best course of action would be for you and other readers
to send along friendly emails to the authors of such messages.
Simply suggest that for future announcements, they include such
important bits like where exactly the good deals can be found.
This will allow you to communicate directly while keeping the
conversation out of public view.
As curator of the Marketplace newsgroups, I would be willing to write up
a set of "posting tips" for the .market.shopping group. The most
important tip would be for messages to tell WHERE the Lego can be found.
And before I make it public, I will send it to you, Benjamin
(and others), so we can be sure it says everything we want it to say.
__Kevin Salm__
Curator, Lugnet marketplace newsgroups
.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
