|
472. wabbit - 9/29/1999 7:00:55 AM hahahaha! I didn't notice that he was unregistered! I guess e-mail will be the way to go. He'll be back in about a week. 473. Nostradamus - 9/29/1999 11:58:57 AM As I recall, AC thought the unregister idea would make it easier to judge when to discontinue this thread. My hunch is that this thread will be here for a long time, but since nobody else has unregistered, what's the harm in leaving things as they are? 474. RosettaSTONE - 9/29/1999 1:58:29 PM So you are even deleting posts in the secret-cell thread? Amazing.
I came here to get you advise on promoting the mote in TT.
What do you think about sending drafted promotional emails to some TT members encouraging them to try mote? We might be able to use their posted email addresses listed when you click their moniker. 475. RosettaSTONE - 9/29/1999 2:04:06 PM you=your
Any chance to get an edit function to fix typos after you post? 476. RosettaSTONE - 9/29/1999 2:07:09 PM you=your advise
Any chance to get an edit-after-you-post tool to help people like me? 477. SoupIsGoodFood - 9/30/1999 1:27:16 AM advise=advice
idiot 478. 109109 - 9/30/1999 2:04:24 AM Rosetta
congrats! You've lured your first one over. 479. wabbit - 9/30/1999 3:39:42 AM RosettaSTONE,
The post was deleted because, as CalGal pointed out in her subsequent post, she inadvertently made the same booboo that started this discussion. She corrected and reposted in #468.
An edit function is on the wish list. Meanwhile, there is "Check for Dust."
I'm not sure about what is happening with promotion...Irv? 480. dusty - 10/1/1999 2:05:57 AM Nostradamus
My question wasn't "Why is there an Unregister option?", it was "Why is it irreversible?".
If the reasoning was to determine when a thread should be retired, then the logic is bass-ackwards. If I know that unregistering is irreversible, I'll be unlikely to unregister, even if I'm no longer interested in the subject, just on the outside chance that I might want to, someday, for some reason, return. If someone wants to get a measure of interest, allow re-registration, so that I could return if the subject revitalizes.
Furthermore, while measuring the interest might be a worthwhile goal for some sub-threads. it is inconceivable that we will exhaust all possible policy questions. (Well, inconceivable is a strong term. If an unlimited power dictator took over, I suppose policy discussions would be moot.)
I'm guessing that AC was experimenting, and hadn't thought through the implications.
While it is way down the priority list, I think it should be changed. 481. dusty - 10/2/1999 12:30:56 PM At some point, we ought to discuss the 2000 character limit on posts. I presumed it was selected more due to inertia than due to any good reason. And properly so, in a triage sense. But now that we've solved some of the major issues, it may be time to tackle some of the minor ones.
I say "at some point", because we may need feedback from AC before making any decisions. I suggest that the character limit should be changed for some threads, but obviously we need to know whether this is technically feasible before debating it.
It seems to me that the Stories thread and Travel threads have the most potential of restrictions from this limit (assuming PE starts documenting his recent travels.) Obviously, people can break up a long post into smaller ones, but why should they? How worried are we that people will run off at the mouth with a longer limit? I wouldn't make it unlimited, partly due to the possibility of mischief, but mostly due to the fact that, at some length, an extremely long exposition should be saved to a web site and linked, rather than poured into a post.
And maybe Politics should be limited to a single sentence. (I'm kidding)
This is one of the least important issues confronting us, but if AC tells us we can set the limit independently for each thread, perhaps we should discuss whether some threads deserve a larger limit.
482. wabbit - 10/6/1999 2:48:37 AM For some reason, the Private Thread feature has started creating access problems for this thread, so it is now open to all. 484. Nostradamus - 10/14/1999 2:22:26 PM What was the decision about whether people could guess at others' previous monikers/handles? I think it's stupid to prohibit it, but I understood the rule to be that it is prohibited and I have been governing my thread accordingly. Somebody clarify it for me, please. 485. Nostradamus - 10/17/1999 6:36:32 AM Don't everybody answer at once. What happened to the banning bloodlust that was so in evidence not so long ago? :) LOL 486. wabbit - 10/27/1999 8:46:19 PM Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, Nost. This is what I posted in Suggestions:
2024. wabbit - 10/27/99 4:57:29 PM
I was hoping that this wouldn't become an issue requiring a rule. Soup asked that his former name not be used and as a matter of courtesy I think that is a legitimate request. However, we came here with a history. People have and will no doubt continue to change their monikers. Perhaps we will outgrow the guessing game, but since it seems to be rampant in every discussion forum I've ever seen (except The Well, where they use real names), if someone comes in with a new moniker, it is unrealistic to think someone will not ferret them out, imo. I would prefer not to have to create and enforce a rule about this, but would rather rely on people's willingness to honor a request regarding use of former handles.
487. dusty - 10/31/1999 12:53:01 AM So, should we have more clearly defined roles for hosts? I like some of what Pelle says, and disagree with other aspects, but this is the palce for the discussion. 488. dusty - 10/31/1999 2:52:53 AM PelleNilsson - 10/31/99 4:21:06 AM
I have examined my own position.
- I have nothing against chat, but I don't think all threads should open for it. I mentioned one specific example in Spiritual, but anyone who follows the Mote knows there have been many others.
- I have nothing against digressions and I have instigated a few myself, but I think that a topical thread should not become a series of digressions.
- The references to e-mails without mentioning of subject do enforce the notion of clannishness and foster conspiracy theories such as AlDavis's "cabal".
- I disagree with wabbit's statement that The threads will be whatever their individual hosts allow them to be. I think hosts have a responsibility to the Motie community and in particular to newcomers. I don't think that a host for a thread on "Is Hegelianism Back?" should allow a lengthy discussion about pet food even if he or she is deeply interested in the subject.
- The above leads me to believe that we need some sort of guidelines for hosts. Given the lenghty discussions on hosts' duties we had in the beta phase I was truly surprised to find that there aren't any. Among the more important duties is to either move the thread along or put it RIP if interest has waned.
489. dusty - 10/31/1999 2:59:45 AM PelleNilsson
Your point 3 is intriguing. I have seen your prior comments on emails and don't recall this refinement. I've tried to limit my references to emails, even though the subject matter was quite innocuous. E.g., I sent an email to Pinchermartin asking about a company in Taiwan because I knew he had been there. (I think) I see now that you would have been unhappy had I simply urged PM to check his email, because it leaves the implication that I might be plotting the overthrow of the Mote. A note that PM should check his email for a query regarding a Taiwanese company would be less intrusive.
Such a note in the café would be a better solution, but not helpful for those not frequenting the place. Yet another possibility is to implement a delete function, so you could post the message to attract the attention, but then remove it so it doesn't interrupt the flow. I'm sure there are other possibilities.
490. dusty - 10/31/1999 3:00:41 AM Point 4 is too ambitous IMHO, but I'm open to proposals. 491. CalGal - 10/31/1999 3:30:56 AM 1. Pelle, as I mentioned in Suggestions, you have not established your basic premise--namely, that the "chat" is reaching problem levels. You can't discuss a policy solution until you establish that there is a problem that needs solved.
There is always going to be a small amount of off-topic discussion. To restrict it completely would be a pointless exercise. You are asserting that it has reached a significant proportion of the posts, and that is just simply not borne out by an analysis.
2. I suppose it depends on what you mean by a "series of digressions". If anyone thinks a thread is no longer addressing its topic at all, that person can suggest that it can be RIPed. The discussion can go from there. I'm not sure why you don't think this policy will work.
3. We can't control what people think. We can determine whether or not their conclusions are reasonable and whether or not we think changes are desirable to prevent them from reaching these conclusions--or even be effective in preventing them.
While we can control what people say, I've always believed that this should be kept to a minimum (personal info violations, for example). Declaring that queries about email receipts are verboten is far more restrictive than I ever imagined us becoming.
4. You seem to be suggesting that the thread hosts have done such a poor job that the Mote is disintegrating. I completely disagree, of course. Moreover, I don't think that hammering in the dire responsibilities of being a thread host is going to get us a lot of volunteers.
5. None of the above points were established to any degree of certainty and I think in many cases, you would get vehement disagreement. That being said, a thread host handbook is a good idea. But I don't see it covering the issues you raise. 492. PelleNilsson - 10/31/1999 4:41:01 AM Dusty
A note that PM should check his email for a query regarding a Taiwanese company would be less intrusive.
Agreed. Alternatively, one may assume that people do check their mail without having to be reminded in the Mote.
Point 4 is too ambitous IMHO, but I'm open to proposals.
Are you really referring to 4?
|
