Mailing list topic RE: [Epic] DUNE

From: Andy Skinner <askinner_at_...>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 16:10:30 -0400

> > Can we PLEASE stop talking about Dune. It's really starting to get
> > annoying.
>
> hey, from the length, enthusiasm and number of posts i think
> people want to
> talk about Dune. Plus there are discussions for Epic 40k versions, so it's
> on topic. In short, ignore the thread and leave us alone

Well, that's an interesting question. We don't have an active list
administrator to enforce such things, so how should we regulate this
newsgroup (if at all)? Tyler suggests that we do it by popularity--if
people want to talk about it, they can. I'm not sure that's how a mailing
list should run--that whatever people want to talk about is OK--rule by
popularity. People sign on to talk about epic. For some people, it really
is a pain to have many messages to sort through. (I can delete them pretty
easily, but some people may still be using less convenient email programs.)
Should people who subscribe to this list be able to expect that persisting
topics on the list will be about Epic? I certainly don't mind the
occasional off topic post, but I don't think long-running threads are
appropriate.

I just checked through a lot of deleted messages. Most of them do seem to
have at least mention of how Dune would be represented using Epic, which
seems to me to be on topic. I'd suggest that, if there are parts of the
thread going on about the history and events overall, that those parts
should be culled or brought back on topic. I wasn't sure how much, because
I've been deleting most of that topic (not all--I saw this one:) myself.

But I do think it is worth taking a look at some sort of topic policy, even
with no administrator. The parts of the Dune thread that are about Epic
versions may be on topic, but the other parts are not, in my opinion,
justified for continued existence just because they are popular with those
posting. (Of course it is popular with those who are posting--that's why
they post. What about the many more of us who aren't, 'cause we're not
interested?)

andy
Received on Thu Jul 02 1998 - 20:10:30 UTC