 | | Re: Brickmania withdraws from Brickshelf
|
|
We here at The Drumm home second, third, fourth and fifth Tim's sentiments. -- Thanx~ Nicole (URL) Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message news:Gyus00.C81@lugnet.com... <snippered> (...) (22 years ago, 7-Jul-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: Brickmania withdraws from Brickshelf
|
|
(...) Yep, I'm with Tim on that. If you don't like Brickshelf, then don't use it. I for one think it's great and it saves me a lot of time when I want to make images public to the LEGO world. jt (22 years ago, 7-Jul-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickmania withdraws from Brickshelf
|
|
I've been watching this thread intently the past few days, interested to see how it would unfold. I have my own opinions, and some of the concerns here I agree with, others I disagree with. But, putting all of that aside, right *now* I think it (...) (22 years ago, 7-Jul-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickmania withdraws from Brickshelf
|
|
(...) I diddn't delete it, Larry says he diddn't delete it. Whoever did delete it is no longer a moderator so case closed. KL (22 years ago, 7-Jul-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickmania withdraws from Brickshelf
|
|
(...) That is false. There is one moderator and the rules could not possibly be simpler or more transparent. People's vivid imagination appears to be much more interesting than reality when it comes to Brickshelf moderation. KL (22 years ago, 7-Jul-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickmania withdraws from Brickshelf
|
|
(...) If it was deleted, it should not have been. I know I did not delete it. (...) Since this is obviously too complicated a process, I have removed moderator privileges from every user that had them besides me. That way there will be no confusion. (...) (22 years ago, 7-Jul-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickmania withdraws from Brickshelf
|
|
(...) Are you joking? Do you have any idea how bad that would work? (...) ABSOLUTELY FALSE. (...) Once again, there is only one official moderator. If it's unsafe or off topic, it WILL be deleted. If it's safe and on-topic, it will be public. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jul-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
|
(...) This might work for off-topic items, but I don't think this would work for inappropriate images. In the most recent incident there was a fairly lengthy discussion on BZ before I saw the pictures mentioned anywhere else, and the pictures were (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jul-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickmania withdraws from Brickshelf
|
|
There seems to be some miscommunication here. When the image was deleted, Oliver posted asking why it was deleted. He received a response from Larry, who wrote that he did not delete it, and was not sure why it was deleted, but speculated that it (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jul-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
|
(...) Yes, that would be great. The moderators wouldn't have to check every image, and they would have plenty of time to look at the few questionable images. This would mean that any harmful images would be quickly delt with. Again, Kevin, is this (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jul-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickmania withdraws from Brickshelf
|
|
In lugnet.publish, Dean Husby writes: <snip> (...) How did you come up with July 4th? The current moderation situation started on June 25th ((URL) ), or are you saying that Daniel's withdraw was the "death of Brickshelf" jt (22 years ago, 6-Jul-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickmania withdraws from Brickshelf
|
|
(...) I agree with you Dan. This moderation was jumped into before ANYTHING was ready. The software, the people and the rules... It was VERY badly done. Yes, Kevin may own Brickshelf, as a landlord owns a building. But he doesn't own the contents of (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jul-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
|
(...) This is an outstanding idea! Kevin, is this easily programmed? At any moment of the day, there are lots of responsible AFOLs checking out Brickshelf. I'm sure nothing bad would remain up for more than a minute. You could make it so that once a (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jul-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickmania withdraws from Brickshelf
|
|
"Kevin Loch" <kloch@opnsys.com> wrote in news:Gyu751.CpA@lugnet.com (...) Well, if there's somewhere a LEGO logo on a picture, it should be suspected, that there is something about LEGO (aka "on-topic") in this picture (even when it's hidden for the (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jul-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
|
(...) I think they are going a little farther then necessary... I think simple "Report this content" buttons would be fine. Let everyone be a moderator. If the button is pressed the account or picture is held until it is checked. Dean (22 years ago, 6-Jul-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickmania withdraws from Brickshelf
|
|
(...) You diddn't read what I just wrote did you? There was no "arbitrariness", it simply was not obvious at first glance that it was on-topic. *Most uploads don't have that problem* because they obviously contain LEGO. I don't think it's fair to me (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jul-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Shot by the Sheriff K. Loch
|
|
I don't like the way "Moderation" on Brickshelf is being handled recently. Like probably 98% of all Brickshelf users I never uploaded anything offending, not even unneccessarily large images. Nevertheless, ANY new image I try to upload now is being (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jul-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickmania withdraws from Brickshelf
|
|
"Kevin Loch" <kloch@opnsys.com> wrote in news:Gyt8H8.GHr@lugnet.com... (...) [...] (...) You didn't read the thread, did you? The picture is not deleted *ANYMORE*! I had to re-upload an updated version of it! It was then a few times toggled between (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jul-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickmania withdraws from Brickshelf
|
|
(...) Yes, it is true. Do you mean the ad in this folder: (URL) doesn't look deleted to me. I don't see any reason why it would be (without complaint from a trademark/copyright holder). In fact, I remember looking at those pictures closely when they (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jul-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
