| |
In lugnet.general, C. L. GunningCook wrote:
> [...] I do have some questions, and as a poster, I would like the "rules"
> clarified to some degree. (Please excuse the
> long windedness... it's a button with me, my apologies in advance)
quick answers:
> So, has Todd had a change of heart???
no.
> Has someone else taken over???
not yet.
> Is there a new vision for Lugnet??
no. At least, not a different one. 'updating' would probably be good though.
> Sure. Whatever. No skin off my back.
> I have my own place, where I can say can use profanity anytime I want. My
> home... and other places I inhabit on the web too.
>
> I have never had a problem keeping that side of me, completely off of Lugnet,
> and I will continue to follow the status quo. (Read me loud and clear, I am not
> asking for the "right" to swear.)
>
> I am also cool with whoever or whatever decided that LUGNET would take a new
> approach to their "problems".
>
> BUT, what I am not cool with, and what has upset me is the covert way it all
> went down. [...] I would like to be aware of the "punishment" before I ever
> decide if breaking the rules is a place I want to go.
completely understandable. I agree.
> Sure, I will give the whole argument over to those that think an extra click
> might not even be "real" censorship... and truly, for me, its not even about the
> "censorship".
is it the lack of clarity then? potential for abuse? ..?
> And yeah, I am clearly aware, today it's just covering a
> "questionable" word... but what about tomorrow???
>
> Will Mr or Mrs Murfleman cover up click hinges??? Bley discussions??
I certainly hope not! :-) Although this is a somewhat separate issue, I would
mention that I think it was generally good that people expressed themselves here
about the color changes. I'm glad they had a place to vent. I'm sure TLC must
have been surprised to learn of how passionate people are about it. It was the
last straw for many people, I know. That's serious.
> Auctions in the wrong forum??? [...] Off topic stuff???
I think there should be much more clarity for people who are coming through
here. With things like posting to the wrong area, I believe users need to be hit
over the head with the cultural acceptibility level before anything is said
against them. I doubt many people read the ToS. If the web interface had like,
big blocks, almost like adversisements, that screamed the purpose of each group
and stressed how important it was to the site's users (and WHY) that posts be
kept on-topic, I believe there would be less problems and less hurt feelings.
Unfortunately, online culture has showed many new users that "forums" are often
a purgable dumping ground. People would need to be informed anew of the fact
that LUGNET is more of an archive of postings; it's a body of works-in-progress,
as much as it is a BB or blog-like place. Appreciation for LUGNET as such, and a
desire to preserve its crafting is ideally what would drive behaviors, rather
than "rules", because rules are made to be broken. Do you know what I mean? Do
you agree?
> disillusionment with TLC???
:-) now, you really should KNOW how important it is to me that people here feel
free to flame LEGO for their screw-ups, right? ;-) (That's how I got myself into
so much trouble over Jake and Brad.)
> Over use of question marks??????
Ooo! maybe! ;-) just kidding.
> I fear not what has happened, (heck, my fear wouldn't change anything anyway)
> but I do fear what it could become. I do fear the unknown.
>
> I was involved in the whole self imploding committee that first was introduced
> to this idea of "murflement" (which I was told was Todd's innovation, but never
> used) and at that time, no one was clear what it would cover.
> How it would be implemented, and just who would be the implementer??
> Now its happening and we know even less...
> Who did it, when did it happen, and more importantly where are their limits???
> Those were the questions that were asked, and afaik, they were never answered to
> any final decision.
that's right.
> Before we knew it, the committee blew up, and I was happy to see the unexplained murfle die.
I was happy to see it die too but I don't have any rational argument against it.
Perhaps I could come up with one, or (more likely) it's as you said and I fear
the unknown too. Certainly it would require a more pro-active administration to
impliment it than has been the norm here.
Regarding that: In the past I would act on things like "bad language" only at
times I came across them or was alerted by a user. (Unfortunately, that
technique came off as will-nilly, was poorly defined, and unpredictable.) By
default, I tend to leave things alone because they usually work themselves out,
and if I were to open a discussion, I might get in over my head. Although it
doesn't mean I'm not listening or don't care, I know that LUGNET's users DO
deserve better attention than I can provide. That's why Todd and I want to hand
the reins over to people with more energy and available time.
> I am bummed to see him reincarnated, because we really have no idea
> what sort of beast he is.
Yes, that's the thing. And it should be handled by someone(s) who will be able
to watch it carefully and listen to people's reactions to its use and act
accordingly. I wish I had the time/energy to be the administrator, but I know it
burns me out. Todd was good at it. I expect the new folks will be as respectful
and patient as he was. I know they do have the same vision that Todd and I have,
which will guide them well. Let's trust and think positively.
> For the third time, just to say "yeah, I know, not my sandbox",[...]
Please don't be uncomfortable expressing your thoughts here. They are important
and do shape/contribute to what happens. LUGNET's users have brought about its
best features, IMO, via their taking time to provide feedback.
I realize there have been times in the past when I've shouted things out of
frustration like, "It's my website and I'll do what I want!" but I know that's
not really accurate. The complexity of the relationship between LUGNET's users
and owners/users can lead to frustrating decisions. It's not that cut-and-dry,
even if it would be nice and simple that way.
> could we have at least a bit of feedback of what this will mean for Lugnet.
Generally:
Things are actively in transition again. Not at a hundred miles an hour, but
Todd and I are at least back in the position of being able to see things
through, after being occupied by other, more pressing, Life stuff. I apologize
for the delay, but it could not be helped.
Specifically:
I'll investigate this issue and get back to you. Sorry I don't have better
answers yet.
As LUGNET seems to be shifting back to my center stage, this is probably a good
time for me to ask for help. I feel kinda stupid doing so because it's been such
a long time since people offered support, and now many forums have become
silent. This site needs a revival, not mere continuation. Times have changed.
LUGNET should have been changing with them, but that's neither here nor there...
Better now to look forward with fresh eyes.
-Suz
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Murfle?
|
| (...) Many parts snipped out, just to shorten things up. You made some great points and reminded my why I continue to return to Lugnet, and thank you for taking the time to respond so throughly. (...) Yes, totally. Both of those issues concern me a (...) (18 years ago, 31-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | Re: Murfle?
|
| (...) It's as the others in this thread said. The "murfling" was done in the past. It's not something being done on posts right now. If it were to be adopted, I'm sure users would be notified. I don't know why they were not before the act was (...) (18 years ago, 1-Apr-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
