Subject:
|
auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Tue, 11 Apr 2000 14:35:01 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
!
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
4911 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.castle, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.castle, Shiri Dori writes:
> > [...]
> > I don't intend to sound harsh or mean, but it is only polite (not to mention
> > it's part of the lugnet Terms of Service) not to post buy-sell-trade • messages
> > to theme groups, or for that fact any group other than .market.
>
> That's not actually true. Only auctions are verboten outside of the .market
> .auction group by the Terms of Use Agreement. Non-auction solicitations • aren't
> strictly verboten by the Agreement, but generally they're frowned upon by most
> people.
I keep being amused in a confused kind of way by this seeming double
standard. Let me demonstrate how this bst vs auction double standard sounds
to me.
Some (maybe a lot, maybe just a few really "valuable") people really REALLY
don't like auction postings. Never seen that particular group described in
any definitive terms numbers-wise.
So in an effort to make LUGNET a place that will keep those people happy
(reference has been made to people leaving RTL but coming back to LUGNET)
auction postings are strictly verboten outside of the .market.auction group.
Now, by your own estimation, MOST people frown on non-auction solicitations.
And yet they're ok.
Why is that? I personally don't care to see either outside of the .market
tree. I would say that *I* equally frown on auction and non-auction
solicitations. What would I (or anyone else) have to do as a LUGNET member to
convince the PTB (you) that we'd rather not see non-auction solicitations
other than in the .market tree?
I'm not trying to be overly argumentative, and I don't want to change the rule
as it pertains to auction postings. I just don't think there should be a
difference - solicitation is solicitation is solicitation. It just seems a
little silly that a rule was set in stone to benefit the wishes and likes of
some nebulous group concerning auction postings but there is no rule to limit
things that, by your own admission, "most" people don't like. Most seems to
quantify a significant enough interest in considering making them verboten as
well.
I'm sure you're thinking of incorporating a polling/voting system for members
at some point (I know I would be). Maybe this would be a good issue to test
it with...
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
| (...) <snipped bits> (...) I generally try to avoid "me too" posts, but wanted to do so here, and add some reasoning. I agree with Mike. My personal preference is to not see any market traffic unless I go looking for it.(1) Also, if the double (...) (25 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
| (...) Auctions create a lot more traffic than regular sales. At least thats what I've always thought was the reason (it's the reason why I don't read RTL anymore, anyway). They clutter up a newsgroup. Maybe Todd feels the same way? (25 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
| <snipped much text that I completely agree with> (...) Precisely. I dislike seeing b-s-t posts in theme-NGs just as much as I dislike auction posts (1). I'd be happy to add anything, but Mike said it all. -Shiri (1) I do not completely dislike them, (...) (25 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
20 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
