Subject:
|
Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 29 Nov 1998 19:52:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2693 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lpien@ctp.IWANTNOSPAM.com> writes:
> Here goes, but I'd like to hear some response from you on whether you
> agree with my technical comments (about article expiration and content
> based verification, specifically) or not. :-)
You may be 100% right, before I tackle any of those questions, I need to
come to a better understanding of section 202 of the new Digital Millenium
Copyright Act of the 105th Congress. It deals with limitations on
liabilities for Internet Service Providers with respect to, among other
things, expiration of content.
> Note also that I have been reading _The Transparent Society_ by David
> Brin, which has influenced my thinking on this quite a bit. While
> overtly it's a book about privacy, it deals with community mores, and
> the opposing notions of frailty vs. maturity as models for deciding
> about content regulation and propagation. Highly recommended. Brin
> writes good SF too. But I digress.
Thanks for the digression; I'll check it out. (I'm currently reading _The_
_Symbolic_Construction_of_Community_ by Anthony P. Cohen, which led me to
start wondering more about this larger topic of community boundaries.)
> 1 - and that begs a question. Assume RTL is hosted here. In LUGNET v 6.3
> when the newsserver technology underneath is no longer visible and
> conversation threads are richly textured with non textual content, cross
> linked with set databases and poster information and parts lists and
> building instructions and cookbooks and pricing information and commerce
> and user monetary account information, whither RTL? Will you have to
> somehow transmogrify text only appends coming in into something richer
> to fit the matrix?
Good question. I don't know. These ng's are may prove to be a very long-
term stopgap; the groupware stuff where there are layers of information
gathering and checks and balances on the larger DB are more important
intially than being able to post messages atop existing content. Even then,
I think these text-only NNTP ng's would still be found useful over web-only
discussions in many cases. But it's still too early to know. I think the
decision to host or not to host RTL is far removed from these other topics.
> 2 - that's right. Worthy. There, I said it. My position here is elitist.
> I actively recruit for LUGNET, more below. But only among those that I
> feel are mature enough. IN another post, Ed Boxer praised the
> "moderation" of this service, but Todd rightly pointed out that these
> fora are unmoderated in the technical sense. But the barrier to entry
> and stronger community help keep things focused better.
The posting setup process wasn't designed as a barrier to entry -- it was
designed as a way to make sure that people understand the rules of conduct
and to make sure that they disclose their true real-life name so that it can
be attached to the messages they post. It's not supposed to keep people
out, unless they feel they want to remain anonymous -- in which case they
are politely asked to seek out other venues.
> > Does there exist the possibility someday for a flame war on RTL over which
> > venue is "better"? (Certainly, opinions differ; do they differ enough to
> > begin driving a wedge?)
>
> Yes. But what of it? LUGNET is now better for societal reasons, and will
> soon be better for technical reasons. You might as well debate whether a
> telephone is better than a telegraph. Most would agree it is. However
> the telegraph still has its place.
I don't want two rival camps to develop. That would be very bad. That's
not what LUGNET is about -- it is not about creating a better place for some
special or elite group of people -- it *is* about creating a better place
for everyone (meaning all online LEGO fans).
> > The highest and most important goal and mission of LUGNET is to aggregate
> > community rather than to segregate it.
>
> I missed this read before. I disagree. I thought the goal was to enhance
> and enrich the experience for those that chose to participate.
You're looking at <http://www.lugnet.com/plan/plan-2.html>, right?
Yes, the goal of enhancing and enriching the experience for fans is indeed
wicked important -- but what's unstated there is that its for everyone, not
just a select few, or 90%, or even 99%. It's assumed there that everyone is
welcome and that everyone will want to come.
If people choose not to come, then that's one thing, and that's OK. But if
they feel left out or pushed out, then that's very bad.
> RTL is a hotbed of destructive behaviours. Leave it there, unattached.
> Forcibly assimilating it, as it were, would contaminate LUGNET with bad
> behaviour, since people WILL behave badly. Leave them somewhere to do
> so. (3)
Can you think of some hypothetical examples/ways in which this contamination
might occur?
> > It's not an access issue, but a social and perception issue. If RTL is
> > hosted here, do people begin to think of RTL as being a sub-community
> > under the (conceptually) larger LUGNET umbrella, or do people think of
> > the two as being separate and one of them possibly being elitist?
>
> I see it the other way round. LUGNET is a gated enclave in the
> wilderness of the internet. [...]
Let's be careful when using the word "gated," eh?
LUGNET is not supposed to be a gated enclave. An enclave maybe, but
certainly not gated, and certainly not elitist in the pejorative sense of
the word.
It's also not supposed to sit off to the side and be some special little
area; it's supposed to sit atop all online LEGO interests worldwide and
"bind the galaxy together" for better or for worse (hopefully for the
better).
Ascribing the label "gated community" (which you didn't do, but someone
might) would be 180-degrees away from what we want. I know it sounds
contradictory, but we want people to feel like they are part of an "open
community." Meaning "open arms" to all who want to wanter in, even if there
are small barriers to entry like disclosing your name or having to act a
little more civil in public.
It's a perception and labeling thing.
> [...]
> To reiterate, my position is elitist. I am a supporter of meritocracy. I
> find LUGNET an improvement over RTL and do not wish the vast unwashed to
> gain admittance here, nor do I wish to undertake the essentially futile
> mission of trying to reform RTL. I prefer RTL separate so I can go
> slumming once in a while. :-)
What percentage of online LEGO fans do you figure you would label as
"unwashed"? 10%? 80%?
What percentage of online LEGO fans would you like to see here as users of
this newsserver? How about as actual members able to participate in
organized commerce and surveys and that whole thing?
The LUGNET project is a community building project, but it is also a
business and as such wants to attract a large number of people. Our vision
is not to create a tiny little elite society of the best 5% or 10% or 25% of
all LEGO fans online. Our vision is to create a fun and interesting second
home for as many LEGO fans as possible.
Quality of the service is important, because judgments can be made about it.
Quality of the people is unimportant, because judgment calls about people
are not our business. Even the most unruly and unwashed are welcome so long
as they come to talk about LEGO and don't make life miserable for others.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
| (...) But, requiring people to reveal true names, and to be civil IS a barrier. A good barrier, and one 98% (1) of the community will have no difficulty crossing. Call it a filter if you will. But it's a filter I wish maintained. I prefer not to (...) (26 years ago, 29-Nov-98, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
| (...) Let me state that a slightly different way -- It is not supposed to be a place for a few select people to congregate and behave in a way that is natural for them (which just happens to be civil). It is supposed to be a place for everyone to (...) (26 years ago, 29-Nov-98, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
| (...) Here goes, but I'd like to hear some response from you on whether you agree with my technical comments (about article expiration and content based verification, specifically) or not. :-) Note that due to size I am putting footnotes on the same (...) (26 years ago, 29-Nov-98, to lugnet.general)
|
132 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
