Subject:
|
Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Sep 2000 00:53:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
195 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> Here's a principle: Communities have costs. I don't think you can show me
> even one free community.
Check. The above is one of my fundamental axioms! EVERYTHING has a cost. The
cost may not be visible to some participants but it is there. TANSTAAFL!
Wishing away cost won't make it go away, there are no free goods.
> Even if you don't give Todd any money (though we
> know you have), the cost of maintaining a community such as LUGNET includes
> time, effort, and stress on Todd's part -- not to mention you as a consumer of
> LUGNET agreeing to abide by the ToS. There's *always* a cost, and that's just
> tough noogies. Personally, I'd rather pay a small monetary fee than put up
> with Yahoo.
Right, and I'd rather not pay this particular fee, or see it paid on my
behalf, (the coin being Todd's time and the cost in dollars for the additional
space and bandwidth) because in the grand scheme of things I don't find Yahoo
that objectionable and I don't find advertiser supported services all that bad
on general principles.
> Having said that, I don't really think that this is about cost. The principal
> of the matter is, ultimately, that we as a community should have some level of
> control over these services. If we can't control them, what's the purpose of
> using them?
Good point indeed. I see this as more of a meta question. Who sets direction?
Who sets how things should be done? He who has the gold makes the rules (about
how his gold is to be spent), is what I have always said and sincerely believe
in. I see no reason to change that.
We're a community, yes, but any particular thing needs to be decided by the
person or persons actually doing the work or paying the freight. So I may be
whinging a bit but ultimately it's Tim's (the ringmaster's) call. If he does
stuff that I think is TOO goofy in ring administration I will withdraw. (1) If
Todd chooses to implement a ring for Tim and the other ring members bully for
him, it's his choice and if we don't like it the only recourse we have is to
not use LUGNET.
> Hmmm. We're really looking at two costs here. With something like this, the
> majority of the cost (time, money) will be up front with the implementation,
> leaving little expense (except for rent, more on that later) in the
> maintenance.
>
> Would you have users pay during the maintenance period to help offset the
> implementation, only to have it "paid off" shortly? If so, would you then
> discontinue user fees, as they are no longer needed?
We're not disagreeing very much here, I don't think. An example. I was happy
to see the State of Michigan lower the toll on the Mackinaw Bridge (from 3.50
to 1.50) when the bridge bonds were paid for, like they promised they would...
that 1.50 covers the paint crew that is always always out there, painting
away. (of course I wasn't happy that it was a state built bridge in the first
place, but I digress.)
How exactly to structure costs is a factor of what you want to achieve. Not
totally relevant, except that there needs to be some decision by the person
who put up the gold, said decision being a risk assessment of how best to get
recovery.
> Since it's not something you
> agree with, you wouldn't need to -- but you still get to use the service if
> and when it does move.
Good old free rider problem. Todd chose to structure his cost recovery in a
way that encourages a certain amount of free-riderism if you view it one way,
(where you consider only monetary contributions) but not if you view it by the
contributions that people make just by being here and contributing
information.
There are lots of LUGNET participants that add heaps of value that haven't
paid to be members (yet? maybe they never will), but the value they add is
positive nonetheless (3).
> Um, pretty rambling and chaotic argument on my part. Please poke holes in it.
Mostly rambly response, not much poking going on, because you're mostly
(completely?) right. On principles we're not disagreeing much, if at all. What
I guess my issue is that I just don't see Yahoo and advert supported systems
in general as "bad" as much as you do. Small potatoes.
What got up my nose was a certain sense I was getting from some posters that
Yahoo was this Great Big Evil Smelly Beast, which I really disagree with. But
then I like MSoft too.
1 - Note please, that we are being mostly (2) hypothetical here. I'm not about
to pull out of the ring over this or stop (you wish!) being a LUGNET
contributor.
2 - 98% in my case.
3 - there are a few that don't add value or who paid, but subtract so much
value that their membership money is cancelled out, but that's just an effect
you get, not an intrinsic problem per se. Trying to "POLICE" them out, if done
by anyone other than Todd is not a good thing, as we've learned the hard way
(4), and even if Todd himself were to try, it's likely to be more harm to the
community to remove them than it's worth.
Here's some unsolicted advice I find I should take more often myself: Ignore
the annoying ones, up to a point.
4 - Frank F. wrote another gem on this policing topic in the last day or two
(in admin.general I think it was) about vigilanteism being bad and using a
soft tone of voice when trying to change behaviour and a bunch of other good
stuff. Worth reading if you, the reader in general, have not yet seen it.
(http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=7708)
I still think that properly structured and invested with sufficient authority,
it is possible for other people (of good repute within the community) to help
Todd out with admin tasks, but Todd currently doesn't think so, and that's
good enough for me, I don't want to risk it and I sure am not going to fight
to sign up for more tasks not related to clicking bricks together.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
| (...) Just curious, how far off from completely paying for the bridge were the bonds and the $3.50 toll to pay them off? I don't see a problem with the government building roads and bridges if they use user fees to raise the money to build them, and (...) (24 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
| (...) No, actually, I totally agree. The challenge is getting the (infra)structure lain in. It's been increasing graudually and will be picking up. In the sets DB, for example, there are 4 other people (Suzanne, Joshua Delahunty, Selçuk Göre, and (...) (24 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
| (...) Though I don't find advertiser supported services objectionable (I'm working on developing one), principles Yahoo has used here have disgusted me, and also their littering of the internet with their brand has as well. That's all my opinion, (...) (24 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
| (...) Webrings shouldn't cost that much money. It's not a portal service (in the current industry sense of the word). It's simply a linked-list collection of Web site URLs and descriptions, nothing more. If it gets really expensive, then it's not (...) (24 years ago, 18-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
48 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
|
|
|
|
