Subject:
|
Re: Group Charters (was:Re: Fabuland Auction Update 4)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Thu, 4 May 2000 15:16:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5814 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Todd Lehman writes:
> 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).
BTW - I was rather bemused by this:
So even though Mark was "right". He was wrong to break a rule which was wrong
even though in doing so he was right?
Scott A
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 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
