| |
> A somewhat rhetorical question: How many people d'ya think feel • comfortable
> explicitly admitting that they're not willing to pick something up for a
> fellow AFOL? It's not fun.
I would hope none :-)
> I once posted to .loc.us.ma.bos about a huge stash of old sets just-then
> discovered at a local newsstand store in town. It was very difficult for
> me to admit that I was unwilling/unable to go back and pick anything up • for
> anyone. I didn't have to say that, but I figured I might get swamped with
> requests if I didn't, because some of these were sets from the early 90's.
> Fortunately, the store took orders over the phone and was happy to ship.
> I just didn't have the time to be an intermediary. Still, even with that
> excuse, I felt guilty.
This supports my argument that such posts belong in the local groups. Your
post was directed to the few members of the Lugnet community who were best
able to take advantage of the find. Posting this to .shopping would have
been dissappointing to the majority of readers.
> Back to the default issue...
> Scenario A...
> If the default is to expect solicitations unless someone specifically • states
> that they're unwilling to pick something up for someone else, does that
> encourage or discourage posting? Or is it neutral?
If the policy is to expect solicitations when posting such info to .shopping
then it discourages the practice of posting info that will not benefit the
community as a whole. Wouldn't this be a good thing?
> What do you think someone who's a newbie thinks when they don't realize • that
> the default is to expect solicitations, and they get swamped with requests
> they didn't want?
It would probably be somewhat disturbing but I'd argue that this is the same
as any other inadvertant violation of the TOS or newsgroup charters.
> Scenario B...
> If the default is -not- to expect solicitations unless someone • specifically
> states that they -are- willing to pick something up for someone else, does
> that encourage or discourage posting? Or is it neutral?
Isn't this the status quo? This encourages posting of information that is
of no use to the majority of users, many of whom have to pay (connection
time, etc) for the priviledge of reading it.
> What do you think someone who's a newbie thinks when they don't realize • that
> the default is not to expect solicitations, and they -don't- get swamped • with
> requests they might've been happy to take? What's the maximum damage?
Failure to respond to such a request is NOT a rejection of the poster. I
think the majority of people would understand that. Your maximum damage
question supports my position. To go back to your example of the newsstand
find the maximum damage would have come from posting to .shopping. Many
more people would have been disappointed by your inability to serve as an
intermediary on their behalf. Server bandwidth would have been increased as
I'm sure more people read .shopping than any of the local groups. Some
people would have had to pay to read your message. I hope we can agree that
none of these effects is good.
I'll say it again: Post to .shopping if you can shop for others. Post to
the appropriate local group if you cannot.
Will
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
23 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
|
|
|
|
