Subject:
|
Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 29 Nov 1998 18:54:03 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpien@#Spamless#ctp.iwantnospam.com
|
Viewed:
|
2831 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote:
> Larry Pieniazek <lpien@ctp.IWANTNOSPAM.com> writes:
> > 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.
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 associate with folks that refuse to be
civil, unless I myself am spoiling for a nice little flamefest.
1 - arbitrary number, used throughout this reply. In reality, the number
may well be 99% or 99.99% or only 97%. Doubt it would be below 95%,
though. Everytime you see a "98%(1)" it's a reminder that it could be
99% or whatever.
> > > 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).
But I don't WANT everyone here. Only the 98%(1) that are willing to be
civil, and therefore are more likely to be positive contributors. And
I'm not sure how to deal with the rival camps argument, other than to
say that I don't see it that way. Telegraph users and telephone users
are the same people. We don't often see pitched battles between fans of
Western Union and fans of AT&T any more. I won't stop using RTL.
> > > 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.
I would prefer that not everyone be welcome, just as I would prefer that
I be able to put those people out of society as a whole that are
unwilling to abide by the rules of civilization. It's a small number,
but they violate rights of others far out of proportion to their number.
> > <RTL is bad and can contaminate>
> Can you think of some hypothetical examples/ways in which this contamination
> might occur?
Let me get back to you on that one.
>
> 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.
Elitist may be pejorative to you, but it isn't to me. And the gate is
the agreement to reveal who you really are and the agreement to abide by
the rules of the owner. That's a good gate. Hence, gated.
One site cannot subsume the whole internet. It can be the first place
one turns, but it may be an overreach to think it will become the be-all
end-all, or even bind the galaxy. The galaxy is too large, and grows
every day. Hence I feel it is better to see it as an outpost within a
larger context than the other way round. Hence, enclave.
> What percentage of online LEGO fans do you figure you would label as
> "unwashed"? 10%? 80%?
100% - 98%(1) = 2%
> 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?
98%(1)
>
> 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.
But unruliness, taken to extremes, DOES make life miserable for others.
This is a key point, prevalent in the larger society we live in within
the US that tries to ensure everyone is included, everyone has the same
chance, and ultimately, everyone achieves the same outcome. Bah. That
way lies slavery.
Telling everyone "you're welcome here, no matter your transgressions,
because we include everyone" is in essence granting the sanction of the
victim. You are telling the unruly that they need not suffer the
consequences of their actions. In other words, attempting to repeal the
laws of cause and effect. But that won't work. If you do not have
intended consequences, you will have unintended ones. And those are far
worse, typically, because they injure others who are innocent.
RTL prior to LUGNET had order, of sorts, because the old timers, who
knew each other, enforced it via suasion, peer pressure, and ultimately
ostracism (to an extent). But the old timers are more often here now,
meaning they have less time to do that. Let LUGNET blossom. Let RTL
wither back to a level closer to the general chaos elsewhere on the net.
But actively recruit newbies that appear on RTL (since it's natural for
them to find it more readily than LUGNET, although that may change) to
come to LUGNET.
People who like LEGO (2) have already self selected themselves, and so
RTL will remain somewhat more orderly than, say, alt.wesley.die.die.die.
... That's good enough.
2 - there's that elitism again.. people who like LEGO are just a little
better than your average Joe.
--
Larry Pieniazek http://my.voyager.net/lar
For me: No voyager e-mail please. All snail-mail to Ada, please.
- Posting Binaries to RTL causes flamage... Don't do it, please.
- Stick to the facts when posting about others, please.
- This is a family newsgroup, thanks.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
| (...) OK, fair enough. What I meant by it not being designed as a barrier was that its original intent was not to be a barrier, even though in practice it is of course a small barrier. I hate to see it tossed about AS a barrier as if that were its (...) (26 years ago, 30-Nov-98, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
