Re: Wait a minute

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 11:22:49 +0000 (UTC), nancyl@xxxxxxxxx (Nancy
Lebovitz) wrote:

In article <pcqfu1lhakfh6a5u56aoo692ug51pa376i@xxxxxxx>,
Marilee J. Layman <marilee@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 23:55:29 +0000, Max <m@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Marilee J. Layman wrote:
On 4 Feb 2006 18:00:38 -0800, "The Thunder Child"
<thethunderchild@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The problem there is that you get to decide whether it will interest
us or not. So far, not.

I think you're being a bit harsh at this point. Okay, so they didn't
read the FAQ, but if they HAD read it in advance then they haven't
broken its guidelines. It says "if you think it will interest us" and
the poster thought it would. Okay, they were largely wrong, but it was a
mistake. You seem to be taking this to silly extremes. The FAQ can't
realistically demand that people don't post an announcement until they
are absolutely sure that everyone will approve (blanket approval of
something on RASFF? With NO dissention? As if!) and it doesn't; but
that seems to be the demand you're making.

If she'd said she was sorry and would read before posting, I wouldn't
have continued, but she's sure she's right about everything.

In this case, she *was* right, and like many people, she responds to insults
with more insults.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to apologize for breaking
unwritten rules after they've been told to check the written rules.

Any ideas for how the FAQ should be modified?

People should read the group for a couple of weeks before they decide
if their zine is something we'd probably like.

I also believe it's important to give people *polite* warnings the first
time. A lot of the folks who make inappropriate announcements are somewhat
clueless human beings, not dedicated spammers.

In terms of bandwidth (including the most important bandwidth, human
attention), it's a lot a lot cheaper to be polite on the first request
and find out whether it's complied with.

And Karen was, she emailed her, and Caroline posted the email and
called her names.

Rudeness may drive away the majority of new people you're angry at, but
a small proportion will want to continue the fight, sometimes for quite
a while.
--
Marilee J. Layman
http://mjlayman.livejournal.com/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Wait a minute
    ... Okay, so they didn't ... The FAQ can't ... clueless human beings, not dedicated spammers. ... In terms of bandwidth (including the most important bandwidth, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: Wait a minute
    ... Okay, so they didn't ... The FAQ can't ... realistically demand that people don't post an announcement until they ... Take THAT, Daniel Lin, Mark Sadek, James Lin & Christopher Chung! ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: I just discovered
    ... don't seem to be able to find and read the FAQ for this here ... I guess you'll always be blissfully ignorant. ... Okay, yeah, so I know The Reservoir Dogs by heart and was purposefully ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: CRIY: Thanks - your input helped.
    ... it okay for me just to bluntly post the relevant portions of the FAQ, ... I think it's okay, FWIW. ... And speaking of the FAQ (it seems to have come up more than usual, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: LDAP + Proxy + Browser
    ... A.B.C.and use the same username USER. ... bandwidth, because many users wouldn't be connected at the same time. ... That is why I wanted some centralized authentication which would just ... I have read the FAQ. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
Loading