Subject:
|
Re: Clarify Appropriate Posts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.build.military
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Sep 2001 22:50:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
656 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.build.military, Shaun Sullivan writes:
> In lugnet.build.military, Geordan Hankinson writes:
> > In lugnet.build.military, Shawn Davis writes:
> > > Is this the place to post original militaly MOCs? Or is only "reality"
> > > based MOCs appropriate?
> >
> > I don't want to answer for Shaun but personally I think that any type of
> > military themed creations belong here. Weather it be an original creation or
> > a true representation of your favourite aircraft, I don't mind. (but other's
> > may/may not. ?????)
>
> Nice try Geordan, but I refuse to be responsible :D Just like any other area
> in lugnet, this is a community-based (and policed, for that matter, outside of
> those rare instances necessitating admin involvement) newgroup. I don't make
> decisions, though I might try to occasionally act as a catalyst for feeling out
> the group. Ideally, decisions of this nature are all group-consensus ones.
>
> The original charter (which was necessarily trimmed down significantly) was
> written as follows:
>
> lugnet.build.military - Military Mania: building (models, creations,
> layouts, settings, contexts, characters, projects, plans, tools, tips,
> tricks, etc.); inspiration (settings, references, challenges, projects,
> ideas, movies, books, literature, magazines, music, etc.); themes
> (historical, nonfictional, plausible); discussion (history, theory,
> strategies, tactics, realism, accuracy, development, historic context,
> etc., as they relate to LEGO)
>
> Obviously, this is pretty open and inclusive. I guess my original conception
> was that the newsgroup be limited to "historical, nonfictional, and/or
> plausible". Specifically, that would allow for MOCs that might have been, but
> weren't, for one reason or another. So Marc Cook's Destroyer/Sub-chaser, while
> not technically representative of a real ship, is certainly appropriate to the
> theme.
>
> 99.9 + % of the time, inappropriate posts won't even be an issue. These
> newsgroups are effectively self-regulating, and people often redirect threads
> that have strayed (or are mispalced) into the correct venue anyway.
>
> I say go with your gut - if it seems to fit, it's probably okay.
>
> The group is also open-ended enough to allow for ancient military threads as
> well; roman troops/equipment, siege weapons, egyptian warchariots, etc. are all
> appropriate to this group.
>
>
> > When people start posting spacecaft here though, that's pushin' it I think.
>
> I agree :)
>
>
> > Again, this is not official, I'll let Shaun make the call, these are just my
> > personal feelings
>
> Like I said, I have no more clout here than anyone else ... group consensus
> should be the goal, IMHO. I'll keep tabs on the links and such, but I don't
> envision having any more power than that :D
ok, sounds cool,
-Geordan-
> -s
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Clarify Appropriate Posts
|
| (...) Nice try Geordan, but I refuse to be responsible :D Just like any other area in lugnet, this is a community-based (and policed, for that matter, outside of those rare instances necessitating admin involvement) newgroup. I don't make decisions, (...) (23 years ago, 5-Sep-01, to lugnet.build.military)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
