Subject:
|
Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.theory
|
Date:
|
Thu, 17 Feb 2000 18:18:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
729 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote:
> 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.
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 to be on the verge of leaving]. I don't
think it has sunk in to everyone. Part of the reason is that that
individual has felt unheard, and probably felt that any post explaining
their reason would be unheard (for anyone who cares who has left [or is
on the verge of leaving], look over the recent posts in ALL the market
groups, you should be able to figure it out).
A also acknowledge that the discussion has been frustrating. We have one
individual who appears to be a continual offender who just doesn't seem
to get it. We have another well respected individual who has pushed the
line, or come close to the line, at least twice, who is offended at
suddenly coming under fire (apparently).
> > 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.
I agree that there is a slippery slope sort of thing. One problem is
that lugnet is a permanent news resource, and thus it is important that
posts which violate the rules not create a history which might induce a
newcomer to interpret the rules incorrectly.
There are solutions to this:
Because of the nature of Lugnet, some things which get posted need to be
removed. Todd's policy up til now has been to not remove posts (or even
really ask that a post be removed). I think this policy is wrong. If
something is a blatant rules violation, it needs to be removed. Allow
the poster to re-post. If there is a mostly valid, time dependant post
like Larry's, let it sit as is for the couple days it is needed, and
then remove it (or let Larry [or whoever] replace it when he has a bit
more time). I would even suggest that borderline posts be removed, and
the poster asked to re-submit a more acceptable post.
I really wish I could find a publicly accessible version of the
rationale of why in IBM's internal conferencing, deleting posts is used.
It is a good rationale, and is proven (the number of flame wars over
these sorts of issues is almost nil).
Repeat and constant violators may need to be dealt with. We've already
dealt with one problem individual. Although the method was awkward, I
think it was effective. The problem individual is making contributions
to the community, and the problem behavior is for the most part gone.
Of course, there will still be some borderline cases which get left
alone. This will result in people pushing the line. No matter how you
draw the line, people will always push it (either unintentionally or
intentionally). The best you can do is have an effective way of dealing
with them, and have the response make it clear when a post is decided to
fall on the wrong side of the line.
I also suggest that that line be drawn to allow a little flexibility. In
most cases, Lugnet has fuzzy lines. I really don't understand why
auctions hold this special case of requiring the Maginot Line to defend
against misplaced auction posts (1). Note that I do understand why some
people would like to not see them, I just don't understand why we care
about not offending someone who is going to go ballistic because they
hear about an auction every once in a while, but we don't go ballistic
when people continue a movie discussion in lugnet.general (which I think
was a far more problematical post than Scott's).
I would have asked Scott to re-post his notice. It needed to be better
worded. I don't think it warrants any punishment though (though if he
continues to be overly lazy, we may need to look at things).
There may also be a problem with people understanding the T&C. What on
earth has caused the rash of misplaced auction posts this past week or
so? I hope people didn't read the reaction to Scott's post and conclude
it was ok to post auctions in lugnet.general.
I think Larry is right, a small committee of people would be better, and
perhaps would allow Todd to concentrate on bringing us more content and
features rather than policing Lugnet.
(1) I also realize swear words and intellectual property issues are also
treated similarly (though generally they are given a BIT more leeway).
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
| (...) That's precisely how it was intended to appear: totally gratuitous. (more below on why) (...) 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. (...) The first (...) (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
|
|
|
|
