Subject:
|
Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:05:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
7826 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Masi wrote:
> Is the following reason, really a good reason for discontinuing sn
> individual's access? I would have thought that the best way to stop "a
> should be dead thread" is by not responding to it. Why not let people
> ramble if they are not offending anyone? (Pleaes cc to my e-mail
> since I
> do not follow lugnet.admin.terms.) All of the other reasons seem like
> such good reasons for suspending access that this one falls just a
> bit flat.
Sorry that you don't follow lugnet.admin.terms. It's generally considered
bad ettiquette to post to someplace and ask for an e-mail response because
you don't read that forum... Perhaps someone else will forward this to you
if you don't stop by and check for responses...
The problem with just ignoring people who won't let go is that there is
always someone new who responds and triggers another beating of the dead
horse. Now I suppose there might be something to be said for punnishing
those who don't read several posts in a thread before responding (so that
they see the "this horse is dead, please stop beating it" post from an
admin), but the real culprit is the person who just can't let go.
In environments that provide actual thread locking, punnishing ramblers is
not so necessary since no one else can stumble into the thread. It is then
quite reasonable to punnish anyone who circumvents the locked thread (though
sometimes it is reasonable to start a new thread, if a new angle is taken -
I have sometimes suggested that when people are getting burried in defending
a poorly worded post that they start a brand new thread with a better
wording - but in that case the person starting a new thread is demonstrating
a real desire to get past whatever was constipating the previous thread).
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
| (...) Yes, I understand that, and I am probably alone in my opinion, but I think that if an initial post is important enough to be placed in a given group, then the thread should live in that group. I am not a fan of having to chase discussions (...) (19 years ago, 11-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
| Kelly J. McKiernan wrote: [snip] (...) Is the following reason, really a good reason for discontinuing sn individual's access? I would have thought that the best way to stop "a should be dead thread" is by not responding to it. Why not let people (...) (19 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
