| |
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> In lugnet.admin.nntp, Todd Lehman writes:
> > 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.
>
> I would further disable any message from going into lego.direct
> if it was cross-posted (either new or a reply). That group has
> a very specific charter, namely:
> > http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=6
> Thus, to me, by definition the content is not suitable for cross-posting
> with other groups.
?? Suppose I posted a question about Castle which, to quote Todd's post #6
above, raised
"Issues/concerns/suggestions which haven't yet been raised"
? The resulting thread, although about Castle, would of course live in
.lego.direct. I think it likely that many folks in .castle would not read
.lego.direct but might have an interest in such a thread; if I could not
crosspost, I would probably drop a separate note in Castle announcing the post
in .lego.direct (which would of course be crossposting by other means). I
don't see anything inappropriate in this scenario[1]. Under Todd's proposed
rules, any (presumably topical) followup by an AFOL would go to .castle, thus
not cluttering up .lego.direct, while people in .castle would know about the
thread if they were interested in follow-ups from Lego.
> Regarding the lugnet.lego.* heirarchy..., I think it would be a good
> idea to move lugnet.dear-lego (or something similar) under there.
> That group does get a lot of traffic . Most
> of it is stuff that also shows up in lugnet.general, etc., where I
> really wish it didn't. Anyhow, I think a free forum where any
> discussions about any aspect of TLC are welcome is a good idea. I
> suggest putting it under lugnet.lego.* because, to me, first and
> foremost that heirarchy is topicly focused on TLC. The .direct
> subgroup will serve for direct interaction, whereas the .dear-lego
> (or whatever) subgroup will server for AFOL discussion about TLC.
> In light of the posting filters activated for TLC reps, it would
> be something that they could participate in should they choose.
> And it gives AFOLs a place to post all those pent-up thoughts
> about TLC, rather then them spilling out into other groups.
I like this idea; hey, anything that avoids killing one of my favorite groups.
. .
TWS Garrison
[1] Except that if crossposting were disabled, I would be starting
simultaneous separate threads in two newsgroups, which could be a problem for
future readers (i.e., people who read the thread in .lego.direct who wouldn't
know about possible AFOL discussion of the subject in .castle, even in with the
Web interface, because it was technically a different thread).
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
21 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
