| |
LUGNET administration has always had the ability to temporarily or permanently
suspend the posting privileges of a user or member. In the past this has been
only very rarely used. The mechanism for doing so was such that only Todd (or
for a time, Suzanne) could easily do so.
Members of the LUGNET Transition Team, who have been meeting regularly for the
last year to discuss various ways of improving LUGNET, have been granted access
to this mechanism by Todd, along with the authority to use it when necessary.
Additional suggestions and changes are still being discussed by the group, but
recent discussions and community trends have prompted us to implement this
particular change now.
Todd has extended access to this mechanism to the following people (all members
of the LUGNET transition team and all already carrying some responsibility for
helping make LUGNET a better place):
Frank Filz
Lenny Hoffman
Kelly McKiernan
Larry Pieniazek
Matt Miller
Todd retains his ability to suspend posting privs as well. People may be added
(or removed) in future. These people have all been working behind the scenes as
part of the LUGNET transition team for a year. In the fullness of time, as the
new governance structure is rolled out, this list (like other lists related to
LUGNET) may change.
For the sake of brevity you will sometimes hear suspension of posting privileges
referred to as a timeout. That’s actually deliberate. Refer back to
this post by Suz, “New Policy on
Bickering in LUGNET Newsgroups” (which we have been treating as part of the
Terms of Service since it was
announced), and you’ll see the term used there as well.
Suspending posting privileges is a serious step, not one to take lightly or
capriciously and therefore the policy we will use has been given some thought.
By convention and agreement, it will take at least two of the abovementioned
folks to agree that a timeout is necessary for a particular case, and to agree
on the length and groups that it applies to. Although, mechanically, anyone
with the authority can add (or remove) privs at will for any user can do so by
themselves, we are going to do so only after consultation within the group.
This is a matter that we will enforce ourselves, if members of the group violate
our internal guideline we will take action as necessary. When a timeout is
deemed warranted by at least two administrators, action will be taken. All admin
action is always subject to review by all administrators.
Whatever the least restrictive time proposed is will be the one used; so if
Kelly thinks that Lar needs a 24 hour time out and Frank thinks it’s more like
48, then it is the 24 hour period that will carry. Further, if Kelly thinks that
the ban needs to apply to all groups except admin.general but Frank thinks it
only needs to apply to market and off-topic, then it will only apply to market
and off-topic.
Note a couple of things from that example...
First, the group of folks that can suggest timeouts is not itself immune to
being subject to getting timeouts.
Second, except in very egregious repeat offender cases, admin.general will
always be postable by someone who is currently in timeout.
When a timeout is given, there will be a note sent to the user at their posting
address saying that the timeout has been imposed and referencing the specific
post or posts that caused the admins to take the action. The user will need to
acknowledge receipt of the note and understanding of the consequences, and agree
not to circumvent the timeout by posting from a different email identifier, even
if that email identifer is already registered and was not administratively
restricted. Failure to acknowledge the note back, or trying to circumvent the
timeout may be cause, in the sole judgment of the admins, for imposition of
additional timeouts.
The time length of the timeout is not, and cannot currently be, exact. It is
implemented by someone going to a page and doing things, and then doing them
again to restore privileges. So it may be somewhat different than stated (23
hours, or 25 hours instead of 24, or whatever). That’s just an artifact of the
current process and can’t be helped. Nothing should be read into it, and of
course if someone subject to timeout thinks they were forgotten, please holler!
That’s the how...
Now for the when.
We could just be flippant and say we know it when we see it... But that’s not
very satisfactory. Rather, here are some examples:
- Repeated abusive language or personal attacks, i.e. bringing more heat than light to a discussion... also known as attacking the person, not the position;
- Deliberately prolonging a discussion without adding any new information or points of view, when there have been repeated calls that the discussion cease unless new information is brought forth;
- Making disparaging remarks about the personal integrity of others merely to make a point;
- Continued or excessive amounts of negative remarks about any person, company, or employees (including TLC) without bringing anything new to the discussion;
- Excessive profanity (e.g. the “big seven” or anything you wouldn’t want a child to read);
- Deliberately and egregiously posting off topic, for example spamming theme groups with marketing posts after being asked not to do so;
- Other ToS violations.
This policy is subject to change and modification as we work through experience
on usage.
The administration policy regarding open discussion has always been to invite
open and frank exchanges of views. This remains true. However, over the last
several years we (and others) have seen a shift in tone and posting practices
here, not always for the benefit of the overall community. The results have been
marked increases in excessive negativity, personal conflicts, flaming, foul
language, and in general an unhealthy atmosphere within a number of newsgroups.
“The friendliest place on the net” is a slogan we’d very much like to regain.
We are in no way attempting to stifle or censor anybody’s opinions or right to
express themselves. Debates on such things as color, TLC policies, quality of
MOCs, which theme is the “best” and so on will continue, as they should in any
healthy community. But when The Line is crossed, LUGNET administration will now
take action to limit unproductive conflicts. This is all in accordance with the
LUGNET Terms of Service.
We expect that this policy itself may spark some discussion. That’s good and
healthy. We welcome refinement of the policy or of the mechanics of the process,
or how and when it ought to be applied.
We also expect everyone here to respect the authority Todd has granted to the
administrative group. They are community members who have agreed to the
additional burden of monitoring and maintaining the integrity of LUGNET, and as
such when they wear their “admin” hats (such as within this post), those actions
should be accorded the same respect you would give any of Todd’s actions. We
anticipate some disagreements over administrative actions will occur, but we
also fully expect everyone to behave appropriately and avoid personal
mudslinging or denigrating behavior. Polite questions about administrative
actions should be posted in admin.general. Impolite questions should be avoided.
But whether or not LUGNET has the right to do this or not is not up for debate.
It does, and it will take steps necessary to preserve the environment here.
On behalf of the rest of the LUGNET Administration,
Kelly McKiernan
|
|
Message has 10 Replies:
 | | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
| (I'm trying to guess where the FUT was supposed to be - .admin.general?) (...) I think this is a good idea (not just the accoutnability, but the whole suspension bit). But I'm trying to understand the technical details - when someone is suspended, (...) (19 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
| (...) SNIP (...) I would like to thank the LUGNET Transition Team, those listed here as well as those not listed, for their continued efforts on behalf of the AFOL Community. I also hope that the mere mention of this new policy and consequences (...) (19 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
| | | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
| (...) <snip> (...) I believe that LUGNET should have this right as well. Almost every other usergroup or discussion board I read has the ability to ban posts from users or IPs. Administrators in some of these other boards do not seem to adhere to a (...) (19 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
| (...) Just out of curiosity, is there any sort of appeal process? For example, if Lar doesn't think that his hypothetical 24-hour Timeout is appropriate, can he request a review of the decision, or is the decision considered to have been reviewed (...) (19 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
| | | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
| Admins - Thanks for posting this outside of .admin so that everyone sees it. The Terms of Use need to be updated to reflect this new policy as well as some other changes. For example, both your post and my reply are against the TOU: 8. (do not) Post (...) (19 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
| | | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
| This could be the beginning of the end for me... "Making disparaging remarks about the personal integrity of others merely to make a point" So I can't call Soren Roberts the smelly village idiot, with all the integrity of a back-room pornographer? (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
| | | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
| Kelly J. McKiernan wrote: [snip] (...) Is the following reason, really a good reason for discontinuing sn individual's access? I would have thought that the best way to stop "a should be dead thread" is by not responding to it. Why not let people (...) (19 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
| (...) -snip- (...) -snip- May I ask if these rules are still being honored? Or are the members of this forum prey to dogs and trolls? I have several complaints. Paid Member #1051 (19 years ago, 21-Sep-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
