🚀 go-pugleaf

Nathan Schmidt (schmidt@civl.canterbury.ac.nz) wrote:
>Wayne W. McDougall wrote:
>> Nathan Schmidt <schmidt@civl.canterbury.ac.nz> writes:
>> Not at all. But whenever I syart something new I try and educate myself
>> to avoid looking like an idiot. I have taken the limited steps available
>> to make information available to newbies. Educational sessions by email
>> is not a service I feel I need to provide.

>You sure looked like an idiot when you posted that 450k document yesterday.
>Have you cancelled it and sent yourself an admonishment by email yet?

Personally Im a little bit pissed off with the article, my ISP was out 
for several days so I was catching up on my news, the last thing I need
is a bloody 450K article clogging up my link.

*if* you must post this sort of stuuf it would be a better idea to 
summarize your cancels like others do. A huge dump of your mail file 
doesn't do anyone any good.

>> > Of course.  Your only responsibility is to cancel any postings which you
>> > personally feel do not follow the nz.general charter.  Nobody else gets any

>> 1. It is not just "personal". As near as can be, I try and make it
>> objective. I only target the most blatant breaches. Feel free to point out
>> any example where you think I have erred. I'm happy to recalibrate my
>> target levels.

>I've seen your recently posted missive on, among other things, where messages
>should be posted.  However, it seems to be somewhat contradictory.  In the 
>section on where to post messages (your "personal summary"), it seems to say 
>that nz.general is the place to post things that don't fit anywhere else - 
>that sports should be discussed in nz.rec, politics in nz.politics, tv shows
>in nz.arts.  The FAQ to which you provide a pointer, though, describes 
>nz.general as "The cesspool of the nz.* heirarchy, Everything tends to be
>discussed here with other groups only picking up the scraps."  Well, Wayne, 
>which is it?  With the number of transitions and tangents that a typical 
>thread may go through over its life, I'm completely happy with the latter.
>Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

Actually the text has recently been updated to read:

- The cesspool of the nz.* hierarchy, Everything tends to be discussed
- here with other groups only picking up the scraps.
- Examples: speed cameras, Shortland Street, Current affairs.
- 
- If at all posssible, you should use a more specialized nz.* group in order
- to make sure your post stands out from the clutter.

However that doesn't change the point that the charter of nz.general is 
broad and inclusive, cancels should be few and far between and confined 
to such stuff as binaries/450k junks articles and ads etc. Not that 
everybody even agrees those should be cancelled. 

>> > Maybe you can suggest a cancelbot like they're discussing on s.c.n-z.  But 
>> No. One of the reasons I am making my little contribution is to try and
>> precent cancelbots being introduced. They lack the discretion of human
>> beings; there are some cases where cross-posting to nz.wanted and nz.general
>> is (currently) acceptable. I have pleaded with some people that
>> education is the answer, rather than automatic eliminations. Their response
>> was prove it. So I am trying.

Um, where and when was this exactly?

>You have not been elected moderator.  You are making a mockery of a public
>forum.

Agreed, s.c.n-z has gone through a long discussion period w.r.t going 
moderated (and at least another 2 months to go), we have had long 
consultations with many people in the group and worked though various 
options. On the other hand Wayne seems to have pulled this cancel idea 
out of a hat.

--
Simon Lyall. | Looking for Work | Mail: simon@darkmere.gen.nz
"Inside me Im Screaming, Nobody pays any attention."  |  MT.