Subject:
|
Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Sep 2000 18:40:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
207 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> > 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.
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, however. Webring was bad before, as noted, on porn - and either way
its a wise move IMO to move the LMWR away from Yahoo and Webring.
> 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.
In this case, Todd and I have been setting the direction of this specific
ring. I don't know what the cost facor of this implimentation will be, but it
will be something broader than just the original ring, and it will hold quite
a bit of benefit to the Lugnet community. We've already thought out how this
is going to work and Todd will get to me soon on logistics of this all. It
seems that its something that he is very willing to do. Both of us are
unclear however on the timeframe.
> 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.
Explain the comment 'bully for him' - I don't quite understand.
I hope that I'm not being too silly by moving to Lugnet ;) I don't think I'm
being silly at all, in fact I think that Lugnet is the most logical place for
this. Also, parts of this new system will make the ring practically
maintenance-free as I see it. So this takes one more thing off of my back.
I'll still be there to guide it in the transition though.
> > 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?
No one will be paying for this service, it will be integrated into Lugnet as
far as I understand in the same manner that the rest of the site is a service
to AFOLs.
> 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).
I agree with this statement.
> 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.
Yup. I'm in Jeremy's 'camp' if there are camps here - but it doesn't even
look like they are. We're just looking at the same thing from a teeny bit
different angle.
> 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.
Yup, understood.
> 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.
I'd hope that we would have the ability to add more responsible admin tasks in
the future as well. IMO it would enhance the community, and let Todd focus on
more long term important stuff.
As far as the ring/new Lugnet feature is concerned, both Todd and I believe
that people will be pleased with what we come up with. We also discussed the
possibility of someone else taking over the Yahoo ring - authorized or
unauthorized, and the effects of such. I suppose I won't have a problem with
someone running the ring on Yahoo if I work with them during the transition to
Lugnet. But would this really be beneficial/necessary??
-Tim
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
| (...) This being .debate, I'm going to continue to ask you to be more specific. What exactly is it that bothers you about Yahoo? I don't see buying up services and systems in order to extend the reach of what Yahoo is able to offer Yahoo users as (...) (24 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
| (...) 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. (...) Right, and I'd rather (...) (24 years ago, 19-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
|
|
|
|
