| |
The lugnet.lego.direct group is special in that it is a direct communication
channel with LEGO (or, more specifically, the business subunit of LEGO known
as LEGO Direct, located in New York City). It's intended for two-way
discussions with LEGO rather than about LEGO, and as such it isn't intended
for fan-to-fan chatter. (Not that there's anything wrong with chatter -- it
just shouldn't be happening in the .lego.direct area. Lots of other places
for that.)
The following is a proposal to reduce the level of chatter in the
lugnet.lego.* newsgroups:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Allow discussion in lugnet.lego.* between AFOLs and TLC employees (both
directions), but not among AFOLs. That is, if you tried to post a follow-up
in lugnet.lego.*, your post might be rejected. If this is the case, you
could always post elsewhere. Here's the rule table.
Existing Post Followup Post Accept or reject
------------- ------------- ----------------
TLC employee AFOL Yes, accept
TLC employee TLC employee Yes, accept
AFOL AFOL No, reject
AFOL TLC employee Yes, accept
More concretely, the newsserver would look at the 'References:' and 'From:'
headers to determine the point in the table.
If the new article was going into lugnet.lego.direct (wholly or crossposted)
then the headers would be checked for this. If the parent article (the one
that the new one is replying to) was posted by someone from a lego.com email
address, then they would be considered a TLC employee for the purposes of
the above table; otherwise they would be considered an AFOL.
In other words, basically, what this says is: AFOLs aren't allowed to
interact directly with one another in the .lego.direct area; AFOLs are
allowed to interact with TLC employees there and vice-versa, and TLC
employees are allowed to interact with other TLC employees.
Does that make any sense? The purpose of this is to help enforce -- in a
fully automated way -- the requirement that the .lego.direct group be kept
free from chatter. We can cite this post until we're blue in the face:
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=6
but it's too easy to forget in the heat of the moment.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
This is something Suzanne and I and Eric Joslin (local AFOL and NELUG member
and good friend up the street) met about and discussed a couple weeks ago.
We think this would be a workable solution. The biggest challenge is
probably the wording in the error message when a message is rejected.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
21 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
