From sbelknap@UIC.EDU Mon Dec 23 21:59:30 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 24 Dec 2002 05:59:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 30278 invoked from network); 24 Dec 2002 05:59:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 Dec 2002 05:59:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Dec 2002 05:59:28 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18Qi6C-0000h8-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 23 Dec 2002 21:59:28 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Qi65-0000gp-00; Mon, 23 Dec 2002 21:59:21 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 23 Dec 2002 21:59:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from larch.cc.uic.edu ([128.248.155.164]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Qi5y-0000gg-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 23 Dec 2002 21:59:14 -0800 Received: (qmail 18967 invoked from network); 24 Dec 2002 05:59:02 -0000 Received: from dial0-249.dialin.uic.edu (HELO uic.edu) (128.248.172.66) by larch.cc.uic.edu with SMTP; 24 Dec 2002 05:59:02 -0000 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 21:27:55 -0600 Subject: [lojban] Re: BPFK: Call for volunteers: discussion board setup Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v548) Cc: lojban-list@lojban.org To: fracture@allusion.net In-Reply-To: <20021223201556.GA2478@allusion.net> Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.548) X-archive-position: 3635 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: sbelknap@uic.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Steven Belknap Reply-To: sbelknap@uic.edu X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810567 On Monday, December 23, 2002, at 02:15 PM, Jordan DeLong wrote: > On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 11:17:17AM -0600, Steven Belknap wrote: >> There is information about the slashdot engine at >> http://slashcode.com/. This would appear to meet the requirements for >> a >> thread-oriented discussion engine. > > [ I originally sent this to jboske, where Nick was wondering if it > would be better due to the insane volume there right now. I could > stand a usenet thing, but I think most of these 'permanence' arguments > are bogus. Mail is probably best---ya'll should just get better > clients if you don't have thread views. ] I agree with you, but we were asked for suggestions. > Slashdot sucks. Both the site and the message board program. I don't know much about the actual code. The slashdot site has some interesting content I don't find elsewhere. slashdot.com seems quite stable.What is it that you don't like about the site? > If you want better organization I suggest that we use better Subject: > headings and that you get a mail client which can display things > in a threaded view (if you don't have one already). Of course, a > few of these jboskepre use shitty clients (please upgrade or don't > use web-based shit) which don't send In-reply-to headers so some > messages won't properly thread (you are one of these people Nick ;) ). This seems reasonable to me, but most posters will not bother to think much about the subject headings. Perhaps what is wanted is a moderated list. That can be a time sink for the moderator, though. > If you want more permanence I don't think a /. style thing will > really help either, because there'll be so many comments that the > amount of permanence is not going to matter (think the yahoogroups > archive, or (better) robin's indented-thread archive of the lojban-list > thing. No one *ever* looks there before spewing to the lists). > > Furthermore, a /. thing will require using a webbrowser for this > stuff, which sucks ass. > > Ok I'm done now. fa'o If it was my decision, there would be one listserv for all things lojban. I don't see the point of splitting things up. I suggested the /. software because it seemed like an option that would meet the stated functional criteria. -Steven