Subject:
|
Re: Group Charters (was:Re: Fabuland Auction Update 4)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Wed, 3 May 2000 20:20:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5736 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Richard Franks writes:
> [...]
> It is tricky allowing localities a certain amount of responsibility for
> themselves, but I believe that it is the best way to achieve a healthy
> balance between sterile correctness (all .market posts in .market) and
> user needs, from an interface to a social perspective.
Wow, you nailed it! That's the feeling I'm beginning to get after reading
recent messages from PeterC, PaulB, MarkH, ScottA, and others.
To posit a question, how much harm would it do if all types of market traffic
were allowed in .loc and .org groups (even encouraged in some cases such as
local sales and local-currency auctions), to the extent that a consensus was
reached with each such group as to whether or not to encourage or discourage
such traffic?
Mark Harrison is completely right IMHO that his Fabuland auction announcement
posted in .loc.au is a completely logical place for it, since I'm sure he'd
rather ship locally rather than globally, if possible. (That doesn't change
the fact that he breached the T&C repeatedly, but it does suggest that the
community might be better served by a more lenient T&C w.r.t. auctions in loc
groups). A more extreme example might be someone wanting to run an auction
or sale in a non-English language and using local currency.
The main difficulty in self-"policing" loc groups is of course the fact that
participation in the groups is voluntary and open. For example, although
someone currently residing in the U.S. may not be U.S. citizen, if they
participate in local loc groups, they deserve a voice in deciding whether or
not loc.us would/should allow auction traffic if market traffic were extended
to loc groups. But how is that known by the server if it collected votes?
I think if market traffic were allowed in loc groups, it would have to be
either across-the-board (all loc groups) or across-the-board by default and
"turned off" by individual groups via some sort of verbal consensus/agreement
taking place in that group. I can imagine big stinks of disagreement in some
cases, but sooner or later each group will have to have the ability to choose
someone to maintain the group's homepage on the website (for various purposes
such as events, links, notices, etc.) and a natural byproduct of this is
perhaps optionally maintaining some sort of netiquette document local to each
group.
Opinions on localized netiquette documents? If your loc group had a document
that you could point to on the lugnet website, which would be editable by
someone you chose from your group, and market traffic were allowed in your
loc group by default (that is, by the main T&C), would that document be
sufficient for your group in prohibiting market traffic if you wanted it
that way? This would be a little bit more like Usenet where a group
consensus is reached on things and then put into a FAQ which helps govern
the group.
If something like this would work, then the upcoming Terms of Use revision
could, instead of referring to group charters, could refer to these group-
local documents (which could evolve and expand or contract as needed over
time) for further definition.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Group Charters
|
| (...) I thought your first message, which I will paraphrase as "no .market type posts at all in .loc (and other) groups", while at first sounds quite reasonable in an A-R kind of way, completely falls apart when you consider .market.shopping. Many (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
Message is in Reply To:
17 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
|
|
|
|
