Subject:
|
Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 30 Nov 1998 02:24:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2516 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lpien@ctp.IWANTNOSPAM.com> writes:
> 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.
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 purpose; the fact that it is a barrier is really a side-
effect. Maybe a fortuitous side-effect, but a side-effect nonetheless.
> > 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.
OK..."elitist" isn't automatically pejorative to me -- what I meant was that
it's not supposed to be elitist in the pejorative sense(s) of the word, such
as snobbery and exclusion. [There is more than one meaning to the word,
right?] It's OK if it's elitist in the good sense(s) of the word, such as
quality and excellence.
> > What percentage of online LEGO fans do you figure you would label as
> > "unwashed"? 10%? 80%?
>
> 100% - 98%(1) = 2%
Why did you say "unwashed masses" then? When someone typically uses that
phrase, don't they usually mean 98% instead of 2%? Thanks for clarifying!
> > 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)
That's how I feel too. But I think it's currently at less than 30%.
Perhaps simple advocacy and time solves that.
> > 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.
Is it naive of me to believe that people would be more well-behaved here
than on Usenet because they understand that there are different rules of
netiquette? (It's OK to say yes. :)
> 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.
Do you think we'll maybe need a .town-square newsgroup someday? (As joked
about in September?)
> 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.
I just popped in a few minutes ago and checked out some of the threads
people mentioned...for example the |||||| Mindstorms thread. Wow. I just
haven't been reading RTL closely for a while...and I have to agree that it
has gone downhill in some way which is difficult to quantify, but in any
case it seems a bit less friendly.
What's going on there? Is it because the old-timers have either left or
decided to participate less and a new set of "new timers" have popped up and
populated the group with a newer philosophy on flamage? Or is it just a
tense time because everyone is antsy to hear about the 1999 stuff?
It's kind of frightening...I really don't feel comfortable there anymore.
:-( :-(
--Todd
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
 | | Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
| (...) Agreed. When I first started reading RTL (May 97?), I would read virtually each and every post. And I enjoyed doing so. Now I skip the majority of it, only occasionally parsing a thread to see what it's about. Often, as in the case of the (...) (26 years ago, 30-Nov-98, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
| (...) I think part of it is that some of the more civil voices are gone. A lot of the recent flames seem to be about the same things over and over. The same people come on and spam the same thing day after day and that starts things all over again. (...) (26 years ago, 30-Nov-98, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
| On Mon, 30 Nov 1998 02:24:23 GMT, lehman@javanet.com (Todd Lehman) wrote: :> 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). (...) (26 years ago, 30-Nov-98, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
| (...) I wish to apologise to fellow LUGnet users my participation in that thread, not my initial post to that thread, rather my profane, inane responses that had subsequently emerged. An irrational, defensive reaction, which only further fuelled the (...) (26 years ago, 30-Nov-98, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
| (...) It really has been the doing of one individual, believe it or not, as the catalyst (with the help of some regulars of course). Reminds me of the Mandroid days. These too, I suspect, will pass. Barry (26 years ago, 1-Dec-98, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
