Subject:
|
Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.theory
|
Date:
|
Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:30:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
688 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.market.theory, Frank Filz writes:
> 2. In this particular example, there is no reason not to point to the same
> link as the background images. This is different from Larry's post in that
> his auction has text which is not easy for him to find elsewhere (while on
> the road, he presumably has it at home, or wherever he posts his auctions
> from). This is different from Scott's post in that Scott's post was pointing
> to his preliminary auction information to reference the pictures (and some
> description, I don't remember, I suppose I should go look at it). In other
> words, your example is totally qratuitous compared to Larry's and Scott's
> posts.
That's precisely how it was intended to appear: totally gratuitous.
(more below on why)
> 3. This does not seem to be an attempt at constructive resolution of what
> is a very serious problem (remember, we have lost a valued member of the
> community due to how we have been handling these possibly misplaced or
> misworded or lazy posts). In fact, this seems to me to be a deliberate slap
> in Larry's face (one of the other people who seems to be speaking with a
> voice of reason).
Indeed, (I agree) he is, as always, speaking with a voice of reason, and this
wasn't intended to be a slap in Larry's face at all.
> If this is the way Lugnet is going to be run, I'm not sure I want to be here
> any more either.
>
> Todd, are you trying to find a peaceful resolution to this, or are you
> trying to piss everyone off who isn't as offended by a misplaced auction
> post as you are?
The first one. This was to show that my post was clearly inappropriate,
while Larry's post, though similar on the surface, was very different.
How do we codify the differences?
For example, if it was just about anyone other than Larry (or maybe a few
others) who had posted what Larry did, then it certainly may have raised
a few eyebrows. How do we explain to newbies, for example, that what Larry
did was an extremely delicate gray-area case, probably not something to be
followed by example? (So my point was to demonstrate an abusive case of
something similar.)
You pointed out in a second follow-up that time was a factor in Larry's post,
and that it wasn't in my post. And I agree, that's a huge difference -- and
it's yet another reason why my post was out-of-line while Larry's wasn't.
But how do we explain in clear writing that it's OK to do what Larry did
but not to do what I did? That is to say, what, in essence, is the
difference between the posts which makes one OK and the other not OK?
I'm not sure that the differences can be explained succinctly, except
perhaps to point to the posts as examples of OK and not OK. Alternatively,
in retrospect, perhaps it would simply be best to leave the whole subject of
gray-area auction-related posts alone altogether from now on, and let things
take their natural course, whether that be to stabilize or for people to
gradually come up with new and clever ways to push the gray-area boundary
farther and farther.
Again, I don't believe for a second that Larry was pushing the gray-area
boundary just for the sake of doing so, except perhaps to make a very subtle
good-natured point, and he certainly wasn't doing it for his own selfish
benefit. The problem (IMHO) is the ramifications downstream of less-skilled
posters trying to emulate what Larry did, and getting it all wrong. Is that
worth getting concerned over, or, as you said, since this is just a hobby,
is this something probably just best left to slide? Or, if someone less
trigger-happy and more compassionate than myself wanted to volunteer to
handle (meaning to decide what if anything to do) gray-area cases like this,
I'm cool with that too.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
| (...) I see your reasoning behind the example. I think that it was at least a tad out of line given the recent history of this discussion. I remind you, the tone of this discussion has caused at least one valued member of the community to leave [or (...) (25 years ago, 17-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory)
| | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
| I'm probably going to take it on the chin for this, but I feel it's necessary to ask: Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in article <Fq34n8.ICA@lugnet.com>... (...) Larry (...) be (...) So, on behalf of all the newbies including myself I pose (...) (25 years ago, 17-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
| (...) I see three problems with this: 1. Constructed examples can easily be made to look more ridiculous than real cases which are borderline. 2. In this particular example, there is no reason not to point to the same link as the background images. (...) (25 years ago, 17-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
20 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
|
|
|
|
