Subject:
|
Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:12:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8198 times
|
| |
|
|
"Christopher Masi" <cjmasi@*nogarbageplease*rcn.com> wrote in message
news:IA4uH8.I2t@lugnet.com...
> 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 around to different groups. I might be
> mistaken, but I didn't part of this thread break off into
> lugnet.admin.general? Then again, I also use my knife as a backstop for
> my peas.
A few points:
First, by that logic, the announcement groups should be open to discussion.
Also, people should feel free to conduct all the minutinae of their
auctions, sales, and trades, in the newsgroup. And even you asked for an
e-mail response, though not because you felt the response didn't belong in
the group your post appeared in.
Second, sometimes a post is in the wrong group in the first place.
Third, sometimes the discussion changes to a degree that it belongs in a
different group. Of course some boards deal with that by requiring a new
thread to be started.
In all cases, the purpose of having more than one newsgroup is to group
similar posts together and allow people to apply gross filters of content
they are interested in. I believe it would now be almost impossible for
someone to follow every post on Lugnet, and possibly even impossible for
most people to read only the subject line of every post. Given that, I
strongly believe that compartmentalized dorkdom is the only way to keep
Lugnet manageable.
As to lugnet.admin.general vs. lugnet.admin.terms: I admit that I'm not sure
two groups are really necessary here, but the purpose is to separate the
niggling discussion over what the rules are from the probably wider interest
in other administrative discussion (such as "I need my password reset." or
"Why do we need rules in the first place?" or "Shouldn't we have this new
group?").
> > 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.
>
> Again, I have to wonder so what? Beat the dead horse. If I find the
> thread that annoying I could just filter it. Is an undying thread more a
> problem when using the web interface, where an an undying thread keeps
> taking up space and cannot be filtered?
What is the damage? Generally pretty small, but there have been threads that
have spiraled out of control here, and each time one does so, we potentially
lose audience. Of course punishing people risks losing audience also, but if
it comes down to a choice between losing folks who do not respect civil
discourse (which includes shutting up when the conversation is over) vs.
(usually) unknown folks who decide this place just isn't worth their time,
I'll vote to make the second group happy. Not all people can filter threads
(the web view doesn't have a thread filter, just a group filter - and these
days most folks use the web interface I believe). Out of control threads
also take administrative time (even if it is just dealing with [or ignoring]
the complaints about the thread).
The color issue is a good example of a thread that spiraled out of control
and caused a fair bit of damage. I don't know how many people left because
they were sick of the discussion. I think the out of control discussion also
really hurt the cause of those upset by the change. For one thing, it has to
have made some people at LEGO to reconsider catering to the needs of adult
fans.
What I can also offer is my experience with a variety of online discussion
forums. The ones with the most control, the most compartmentalization, the
best ability to shut down threads, are the ones that seem the most useful.
The reality for me is that the more controlled forums have a higher
percentage of useful content, and it is easier to find that content (because
it isn't burried, and is in the most appropriate forum the most often).
On the other hand, I think some folks like to just engage in whatever
conversation is currently going on. Lugnet with the group roll up in the web
interface actually helps this type of reader out, and if the administration
has the ability to correct misplaced posts, this type of reader need not
really change their habits (other than to be willing to stop posting to a
thread when it is closed [however that is done] and perhaps be willing to
try and pay a little attention to where follow-ups have been set
incorrectly, and to chose an appropriate group to post in when they initiate
a thread). In other words, to some extent, Lugnet gives the best of both
worlds. I haven't seen any other sgtructured forum implementation that also
has an unstructured view.
> Again, I was just thought that someone who doesn't know when to stop
> talking (me right now for example) doesn't seem to be in the same league
> as someone who is abusive and profane.
That is a good point. And that is why I expect to see very few cases where a
dead horse beater is punished. But some folks just get so hung up that they
perhaps need a little timeout to encourage them to stop.
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
