posted 01-24-2003 09:57               

It would make it a lot easier to see which ones she hasn't addressed and would make for fewer distractions.

It not that others opinions and advice are not welcome, it's just that the purpose of this board is to get answers from RCI and often the more posts a thread gets the further it gets from the original topic.

If a post spurs an additional question, it could be ask as a new post.

Just my cent-and-a-half worth.

posted 01-24-2003 11:37               

For anyone that hasn't tuned in recently, they will also innocently do some things that are not quite in step.

This will all dies down once the damburst of questions is answered.

Is the purpose of the RCI Board to ask Madge questions and have her answer them or is the purpose to discuss questions asked by another, offering our own opinions on that topic, in addition to getting Madge's answers??

Edit: BTW, Marina, I clicked your link and all I found was someone asking the same thing and Ed offering his opinion, so the "discussion" on this question must have taken place off the board, between moderators.

No big, deal, though. Just thought it made sense and would help Madge--and all of us. Obvioulsy, others have too.

------------------
JMHO
JLB

posted 01-24-2003 12:08               

Instead, what I'd like to see is more focus and less "chat." I'd also like to see folks check and see if their concern is already listed, since we have multiple threads with the same topic.

In addition I'd like to urge folks not to list multiple questions/thoughts in one note...makes it difficult to answer and follow later for others.

JMHO, of course.

Fern

posted 01-25-2003 07:47               

I appreciate your answer. It makes sense as to why it has to be self-policing.

Edit--I just went back and read the instructions on the top of the board and the way I read it, it is encouraging comments from others (other than Madge) as long as those comments pertain to RCI. So, and I have done it myself, we are getting non-RCI interpretations of RCI policy. There's already plenty of that on the other boards (which the instructions attempts to encourage--using other boards).

So, why not just "encourage" all the side comments not be made at all?

------------------
JMHO
JLB

posted 01-25-2003 08:01               

"The sole purpose of this forum is to provide a place to enter comments and questions directly to RCI ..."

".. please stay focused and do not add idle chatter to these topics .."

".. do not tack unrelated questions onto existing topics, but rather start a new topic with a descriptive subject line."

"Discussions ABOUT these topics that are not directed to RCI should be placed in other forums, such as Exchanging."

posted 01-25-2003 09:46               

"Don't assume you are an expert. Your interpretation of RCI's policies has little, if anything, to do with reality. Add factual evidence, but let the interpretations come from those who know."

It appears that some people have an overly enthusiastic impression of their expertise.

The problem seems to be that these boards are seen as a place to DISCUSS issues, including RCI policies, and that's not really the thrust of the RCI board.

Oh well, the site is a much better place for the existence of that board, no matter how many people seem to abuse it.

Tom

P.S. Am I being contentious today?

posted 01-25-2003 11:14               

Many of us are posting our experiences, which are relevant. Your first few lines really turned me off. I am reality-based, factually based whenever I post to somebody else's problem (unless I am "amplifying the description of the problem, which I did once). I wouldn't join the thread if I wasn't.

Fern

posted 01-25-2003 11:17               

If it's a place to get an answer from RCI, I doubt that anyone is interested in mine, or anyone else's. Gosh, I would even go as far as saying many have already seen enough of my comments about RCI, as I have already seen all I need to see from other's.

MG:

I appreciate what you are saying and am only saying that when you ask folks to restrict it to "comments" relating to RCI, you haven't really restricted it much at all.

posted 01-25-2003 11:20               

Go figure.

Let's not make this personal. I'm not. I'm just saying let's let RCI have this space, without us violating it. We've been asking for that for years.

posted 01-27-2003 06:38               

quote:

---

Originally posted by JLB:
I appreciate what you are saying and am only saying that when you ask folks to restrict it to "comments" relating to RCI, you haven't really restricted it much at all.

---

It is not "comments relating to RCI", it is "comments directly to RCI". Big difference. This forum is for direct communication to and from RCI, not discussion and communication among the TUG bbs community in general, as we have lots of other places for this. (Hmm.. maybe that would be a good addition to the top of the page ...)

This bbs software does give us the capability of not permitting anybody but RCI (or II in the Ask II forum) and bbs administration to enter replies. Some of us were in favor of setting things up that way in the first place, but in discussions among the volunteers is was decided that would be too restrictive in that even the original poster could not enter a followup.

posted 01-27-2003 07:29               

RCI doesn't know how its system works in general release. No software developer does. RCI knows only how its system is SUPPOSED to work. If Madge says "This is how it works" and TUG users know that it doesn't work that way for them, I think they should speak up. How else is RCI ever going to know what they need to fix to make their policies match their performance?

Ditto with policies. We all know that you can call 10 VCs and get 6 different answers. If Madge says one thing and we know that VCs are telling us another, then Madge needs to know that they need to step up training and communication of policy changes to the front-line reps.

posted 01-27-2003 22:48               

Now if we start by saying on the Topic anything besides addressing to Madge first... anyone with a reply could answer.
IMHO.
Joe