> Jeff is never the less correct - the reason that threads die when
> moved is that NO ONE POSTS. Not even those who were carrying the
> thread to start with.
Yep.
> Perhaps you need to think back a couple of years, and remember what
> "on topic" for the digest is. Basically - if its gloranthan, its on
> topic. The remit for the digest includes the *entire* HQ-RPG list
> remit, plus that of numerous others.
This can surely be discussed on the GD.
I hope that the more inflammatory points in the discussion will be kept here, but I think that actual discussion of the real issues belongs somewhere else.
> There is no hole, just some people who have (for reasons I'm not sure
> even they understand) abused the digest's open charter to induldge
> their extreme discussions, and now believe that this is all it is and
> all it can be.
??
What's extreme about the Carmanian thread, for instance ?
The extreme discussions don't work very well on the GD either, really.
Graham, can't you see that I don't think there's anything wrong with the GD ?
> >If there were something there, instead of nothing, or if
> >the gap were far narrower, or whatever, no-one would
> >post GD-type stuff in the wrong place. As it is, more and more
> >people (nope, not just me ; anyway I'm not going to do it again) are
> >doing exactly that.
>
> You are one of the prime offenders. There are many others. Personally,
> I'd like to see Jeff carrying a much bigger stick as moderator, but
> that's his business.
Me too, really. There's been too much slippage, and people in general seem to have increasingly fuzzy ideas about what is and isn't appropriate.
Then again, the more HW/HQ there is in print, the higher the list learning curve will be. It's a natural progression, not much can be done about.
> Look, the correct way to handle this is to kill your group, and
> *DISCUSS ON THE DIGEST* how to fix any problems that list may have.
Today's GD hasn't arrived yet ...
And I *am* contemplating killing my group, as I've pointed out almost non-stop in the past 24 hours.
The group *isn't* a done thing, Graham, it's a concrete *proposal*.
It is deletable.
If it ain't viable, it'll die.
> And, frankly, I have absolutly no interest in running a mailing list
> that is left with only the topics that you seem to feel belong to the
> Digest.
<sigh>
Graham, there's no problem IMO with how you are running the Digest.
None.
No problem with the topics, no problem about anything not belonging there.
> Your comment on your list that "if you *are* interested in the
> truly obscure aspects, then by all means take it to the GD"
Damn, bad phrasing there, sorry.
> proves
> that you do not understand how I wish the Digest to be, and as it
> *has* been for most of its history. When it gets to the point that I
> can't read any of the mails, I will shut down the Digest. I doubt
> anyone will take it over.
I'd prefer to see my list die than the GD.
> Effectively, I see you as making a bid to
> take over the digest, because I won't be running a digest doomed to
> your very negative view of its roll.
My view of the GD's role isn't so negative as you suggest.
Hell, maybe I should just rename my list HQ-Marginalia or something, that's what it's intended as ...
cheers,
Julian
Powered by hypermail