|
Grex > Coop7 > #94: Party - how are the permanent party items named? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 124 responses total. |
popcorn
|
|
response 100 of 124:
| 
Oct 15 18:57 UTC 1995 |
Hm. Currently there's no way to tell which party channels have been used.
I'm tempted to say we should reap party channels when the person who
originally requested the channel has their account reaped. Are there any
channels (other than maybe Oldfolks) that are regularly used by other people
than the person who requested it?
|
selena
|
|
response 101 of 124:
|
Oct 15 22:49 UTC 1995 |
May as well reap Oldfolks.. it's not been used in a *long* time.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 102 of 124:
|
Oct 16 15:17 UTC 1995 |
Well, that's llanarth's decision.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 103 of 124:
|
Oct 16 16:18 UTC 1995 |
Ah, interesting.. so llanarth _does_ posess control over it, then?
|
popcorn
|
|
response 104 of 124:
|
Oct 17 13:54 UTC 1995 |
Well, only sort of. She doesn't have any special commands to control the
channel in any way. But, as a partyadm, it seems to me that it's courteous
to give her some say in the channel's fate, since she originally requested
it.
|
wisdom
|
|
response 105 of 124:
|
Oct 17 14:45 UTC 1995 |
Well, from talking to her Saturday, I'd say sje's sick of it. I
tries to get her to enter into this item, so we'd have her view on it,
but I see she hasn't been here yet.
|
selena
|
|
response 106 of 124:
|
Oct 18 05:00 UTC 1995 |
Fine. I'll ask her, then. But, it just further goes to show why
these channels seem owned..
|
sidhe
|
|
response 107 of 124:
|
Oct 19 00:07 UTC 1995 |
Indeed, do we ask the originator of a conference when we decide
to dissolve it, from sheer lack of use? Very interesting. It's been
said that it is silly to percieve these channels as "owned", but
is that not what has been set up, by way of suggestive inclusion?
|
popcorn
|
|
response 108 of 124:
|
Oct 19 03:45 UTC 1995 |
If the original suggestor of a conference is still around, yes.
(But actually, Grex has pretty much never dissolved any conference
for lack of use.)
|
davel
|
|
response 109 of 124:
|
Oct 19 10:15 UTC 1995 |
You are *so* right. <sigh>
|
selena
|
|
response 110 of 124:
|
Oct 19 15:18 UTC 1995 |
Hey! Wasn't RPG killed several times?
|
davel
|
|
response 111 of 124:
|
Oct 19 20:43 UTC 1995 |
If the FWs choose to restart a conference, after that's done the old one
may be deleted - though except in agora & coop I don't think anyone's
bothered too much. But I wouldn't say that's what we're discussing.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 112 of 124:
|
Oct 19 20:55 UTC 1995 |
So, what are we discussing? Don't put a stop to a line of
thought if you do not supplant it with your own, please.
In any case, why is it that the asker holds this power,
when there is no noisetab it would disrupt? Especially if the channel
is unused..
|
davel
|
|
response 113 of 124:
|
Oct 20 10:12 UTC 1995 |
Well, the original question dealt with removing party channels.
Question of removing conferences came up as a parallel. Selena objected
that RPG had been killed several times. It was *restarted*, maybe, but
unless removing the party channel *& then re-creating it with the same
noisetab owner* would satisfy her that bears no relation to the original
topic. Which is what I said.
I'm sorry, but in my book saying that something is irrelevant is not
"putting a stop to a line of thought", it's discussing the issue &
trying to keep on track. If *you* see some connection, why not say
so instead of just complaining?
|
wisdom
|
|
response 114 of 124:
|
Oct 20 18:25 UTC 1995 |
Where in the hell is she? I thought she said she'd be coming
in here..
|
selena
|
|
response 115 of 124:
|
Oct 22 09:48 UTC 1995 |
She's currently telling me what lower plane to relocate to.
And you keep saying channels aren't owned. What a load of crap!
|
steve
|
|
response 116 of 124:
|
Oct 22 16:13 UTC 1995 |
What might be official policy is often different from the
perceived policy. People do think they own channels, I'm sure.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 117 of 124:
|
Oct 25 17:44 UTC 1995 |
And why shouldn't they? Apparently llanarth here is attached to it,
and according to procedure, she has every right to call it hers..
|
lilmo
|
|
response 118 of 124:
|
Oct 25 19:16 UTC 1995 |
I think that all the invective over the issues raised in this item is a
perfectly good stand-alone rational for de-owning party items, or revising
the means by which they are awarded.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 119 of 124:
|
Oct 26 19:13 UTC 1995 |
A decent point, but then, there are many things here that get much
attention in an item, that nothing is done about.. or at the very least,
nothing is committed to regarding said controversies..
I'd like to see that change, if to nothing more than a sheer
acknowlegment of the problem in question, and a "We're working on it, and
here's how".
|
scg
|
|
response 120 of 124:
|
Oct 27 06:05 UTC 1995 |
But before we can work on solving a problem, we have to decide that it is
actually a problem. We haven't decided that, and there's no reason to fix
a non problem.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 121 of 124:
|
Nov 2 15:42 UTC 1995 |
An issue that raises, as lilmo put it, all these "invective"
responses shouldn't be tossed aside as "not a problem". If this many
people are this adament about it, then there's a problem.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 122 of 124:
|
Nov 3 02:21 UTC 1995 |
Although that still leaves the question: "What IS the problem?"
|
wisdom
|
|
response 123 of 124:
|
Nov 18 00:59 UTC 1995 |
Invective? How 'bout it just pisses people off?
I've been down to party, and I've talked to llanarth, and she's explaining
to me why she likes these things. I don't think I get it yet, but, hey,
I've never had my own noisetab, either.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 124 of 124:
|
Nov 27 03:57 UTC 1995 |
No, no, not "What's the problem with invevctive,", but "What is the problem
in party that we are trying to address?"
|