 | | Re: Calling for Box Status and New Rule to vote on
|
|
(...) Hear Hear. A comment on the rule, I think the idea's in the right direction but it may need a bit of polishing/wordsmithing. Todd and I have special standing in that it was his parts and idea, and my work, that started many of these boxes off, (...) (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.market.jambalaya, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling for Box Status and New Rule to vote on
|
|
Ok Larry, (or anyone else) what do you think we should change?? I'm up for changes in it.. I just want something that will keep these boxes moving and not to all the same people, We've got people on the lists that have never received a box yet... (...) (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.market.jambalaya, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling for Box Status and New Rule to vote on
|
|
(...) I agree. Your proposed rule doesn't address the problem, though, which I see as this: We did things first come first served. That's usually fair. But in this case, what it resulted in was the following: Person A discovered this thing. Person A (...) (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.market.jambalaya, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling for Box Status and New Rule to vote on
|
|
(...) I've already tried to take care of most of this, that's why you'll find the lists aren't in exact order as they are on the sign up list, though that was agreed to long ago. though I like your idea of just moving the people around.. that's (...) (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.market.jambalaya, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling for Box Status and New Rule to vote on
|
|
(...) Probably not a solution for all the boxes (maybe a couple of them?) but how about a dynamic list rather than a static one. Rather than sending the box to whoever first expressed interest 6 months ago, send it to whoever replies first to a post (...) (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.market.jambalaya, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling for Box Status and New Rule to vote on
|
|
(...) OOOOhhh.. I like that idea! (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.market.jambalaya, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling for Box Status and New Rule to vote on
|
|
(...) As one who has been on the lists for a few months without seeing a single box I DON'T like that idea. Waiting is bad enough...to now require those of us who have been patient thus far to constantly monitor another newsgroup just to say we want (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.market.jambalaya, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling for Box Status and New Rule to vote on
|
|
(...) I like the idea so long as there is some mechanism which makes sure that those who don't sit glued to their computer all day will get a decent chance to receive a box, and even better, something that makes sure there is a good flow (i.e. if (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.market.jambalaya, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | RE: Calling for Box Status and New Rule to vote on
|
|
(...) That's exactly why I said it's not a perfect solution. But take GB#4 for example. (It's not lost is it?) I think there's only one person on that list who hasn't already received at least one box. Knock everyone else off that list (including (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.market.jambalaya, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling for Box Status and New Rule to vote on
|
|
I think this email update idea is terrible. Some people might not be at their computer that moment the availability is posted. It will lead to box sniping. I think we should just be stuck with the list as it is (fcfs). Maybe email the next recipient (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.market.jambalaya, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | RE: Calling for Box Status and New Rule to vote on
|
|
(...) Box sniping? Please define. Doug (24 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.market.jambalaya, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling for Box Status and New Rule to vote on
|
|
Doug Finney wrote in message ... (...) He's making an analogy to auction sniping on places like eBay where people with nothing better to do with their time hover over auctions which are about to end, and chuck in a bid which might win the auction, (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.market.jambalaya, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling for Box Status and New Rule to vote on
|
|
Frank Filz wrote in message ... (...) the (...) I don't see this as a problem if people are restricted so as not to re-recieve a box before all those on the list have been accounted for, or perhaps not to receive the same box twice in say 3 months. (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.market.jambalaya, lugnet.general)
|
