Rainbow Wolfe on Sun, 5 Jun 2005 05:10:46 -0500 (CDT)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] Public Fora (was: Fwd: Re: Tweak Recognizer)

no. I'd keep forums as they are. I'll just keep hitting the wrong button, or 
not as the case may be. 
Anyway, we still have the notices forun if any one thinks of a reason to use 

- RW

On 6/5/05, Peter Cooper Jr. <pete+bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Rainbow Wolfe <rainbowdreamwolf@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > Oh, and in the current rules (not having time to check) does it not just 
> say
> > public forum? And aren't both (or even all 3) forums public? Don't think 
> it
> > specifies which one unless you look at the Wiki.
> Rule 1-4 states that "A Forum is a means by which Outsiders can
> communicate. Fora may be Private or Public; all Fora are Private until
> a rule makes them otherwise."
> Rule 4-4 allows the FCC to designate Public Fora. Currently, -discuss
> isn't one.
> One of the reasons for having the fora separate is so that ministers
> (or other players) who are busy can just check the "business" forum
> for actions people take, without needing to wade through all the
> discussion on whether those actions are good ideas. If we were to make
> -discuss a public forum as well, then we'd need to look through both
> forums for things that happen, which means we might as well just have
> one forum.
> Now, if you want to get rid of the tacking on of the Reply-To to the
> discuss list, I have no problem with that at all... Although I've
> configured my mail program such that reply-to-all stays on the
> business list and regular-reply uses the Reply-To header to the
> discuss list, so I just think about which button I want to hit each
> time I reply. But even I hit the wrong one sometimes. Having
> everything on one mailing list seems fine to me, except for those
> weeks when a bazillion messages show up.
> We used to have a rule where a message to a private forum could be
> recognized at a minister's discretion, allowing them to treat it as a
> game action but not requiring them to read the forum if they were
> busy. Something like that might not be such a bad idea. (Although, I
> think I'd prefer an additional designation of a semi-public forum or
> something, to avoid a minister saying "But e emailed a Game Action to
> me directly, really e did!".)
> --
> Peter C.
> "The IPng WG has selected a packet format which includes 1696 bytes of
> address space."
> -- RFC 1776, "The Address is the Message"
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss

You forget one thing... I'm Captain Jack Sparrow.
spoon-discuss mailing list