PDA

View Full Version : [Dixonary] POLL: Making the Dixonary group public


Daniel B. Widdis
January 5th, 2008, 02:50 PM
Unfortunately, Google Groups doesn't have a polling feature, so we'll do
this the old fashioned way: simply reply to this message.

Should settings be changed to list the Dixonary group in the Google Groups
directory and/or allow non-members to view its content?

A - No. Leave the group private as it currently is.

B - Directory only. List the group in the directory but do not allow
non-members to view posts until they join. (Note that they can still view
the posts at tapcis.com.)

C - Directory and content. Let's open the group up by listing it in the
directory and allowing non-members to view its content. They must still
join the group to post.

--
Dan

France International
January 5th, 2008, 03:13 PM
I vote for C.

--Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel B. Widdis" <widdis (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
To: <Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com>
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 3:50 PM
Subject: [Dixonary] POLL: Making the Dixonary group public


>
> Unfortunately, Google Groups doesn't have a polling feature, so we'll do
> this the old fashioned way: simply reply to this message.
>
> Should settings be changed to list the Dixonary group in the Google Groups
> directory and/or allow non-members to view its content?
>
> A - No. Leave the group private as it currently is.
>
> B - Directory only. List the group in the directory but do not allow
> non-members to view posts until they join. (Note that they can still view
> the posts at tapcis.com.)
>
> C - Directory and content. Let's open the group up by listing it in the
> directory and allowing non-members to view its content. They must still
> join the group to post.
>
> --
> Dan
>
>

Hugo Kornelis
January 5th, 2008, 03:24 PM
Hi Daniel,

Are you sure you included the correct def in there? :-P

I vote for C:

> C - Directory and content. Let's open the group up by listing it in the
> directory and allowing non-members to view its content. They must still
> join the group to post.

Best, Hugo

Paul Keating
January 5th, 2008, 03:31 PM
I vote for C

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel B. Widdis" <widdis (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
To: <Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com>
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 9:50 PM
Subject: [Dixonary] POLL: Making the Dixonary group public

Christopher Carson
January 5th, 2008, 04:03 PM
I'll vote for C as well.

Tim Lodge
January 5th, 2008, 05:24 PM
Dan

I vote for C and giving the moderators discretion to switch back if
the spam proves too much.

-- Tim L

Bill Hirst
January 5th, 2008, 06:01 PM
I vote for c, with minor fears of letting in hordes of the illiterate,
obnoxious and (gasp) Republicans.

If it doesn't work out we can always reverse our stance, change our
URL to goggle-gropes and move to Nigeria.

-Bill

Dave Cunningham
January 5th, 2008, 08:47 PM
C, si.


On Jan 5, 3:50*pm, "Daniel B. Widdis" <wid... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
> Unfortunately, Google Groups doesn't have a polling feature, so we'll do
> this the old fashioned way: simply reply to this message.
>
> Should settings be changed to list the Dixonary group in the Google Groups
> directory and/or allow non-members to view its content?
>
> A - No. Leave the group private as it currently is.
>
> B - Directory only. *List the group in the directory but do not allow
> non-members to view posts until they join. *(Note that they can still view
> the posts at tapcis.com.)
>
> C - Directory and content. *Let's open the group up by listing it in the
> directory and allowing non-members to view its content. *They must still
> join the group to post.
>
> --
> Dan

Dodi Schultz
January 6th, 2008, 12:15 AM
Whatever the majority decides is fine with me.

--Dodi

Guerri Stevens
January 6th, 2008, 05:22 AM
I vote for C.

My thinking is that we could attract more players. Maybe we should say
that if we don't within some time period, the group should go private
again. And maybe if someone joins and doesn't play, the person should be
dropped (i.e. what was the point of joining and maybe it was for some
purpose other than playing the game).

Guerri

Daniel B. Widdis wrote:
> A - No. Leave the group private as it currently is.
>
> B - Directory only. List the group in the directory but do not allow
> non-members to view posts until they join. (Note that they can still view
> the posts at tapcis.com.)
>
> C - Directory and content. Let's open the group up by listing it in the
> directory and allowing non-members to view its content. They must still
> join the group to post.
>

JohnnyB
January 6th, 2008, 09:05 AM
Dan

Vote for C

JohnnyB

>
> C - Directory and content. Let's open the group up by
> listing it in the directory and allowing non-members to view
> its content. They must still join the group to post.
>

Judy Madnick
January 6th, 2008, 09:20 AM
<< C - Directory and content. Let's open the group up by listing it
<< in the
<< directory and allowing non-members to view its content. They
<< must still
<< join the group to post.

Judy Madnick
Jacksonville, FL

Tony Abell
January 6th, 2008, 10:38 AM
I say C.

------------------------------------------
On 05-Jan-08 at 15:50 Daniel B. Widdis wrote:

> Unfortunately, Google Groups doesn't have a polling feature, so we'll do
> this the old fashioned way: simply reply to this message.

> Should settings be changed to list the Dixonary group in the Google Groups
> directory and/or allow non-members to view its content?

> A - No. Leave the group private as it currently is.

> B - Directory only. List the group in the directory but do not allow
> non-members to view posts until they join. (Note that they can still view
> the posts at tapcis.com.)

> C - Directory and content. Let's open the group up by listing it in the
> directory and allowing non-members to view its content. They must still
> join the group to post.