Subject:
|
Re: posting privileges to 1000steine-members revoked!?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Jan 2005 05:25:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
399 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, René Hoffmeister wrote:
> Larry,
>
> I have a real lack of understanding for your behaviour to revoke posting
> privileges to people who only quoted "bad words" to keep the context, while the
> original post with those "bad words" is still public and even highlighted.
I can see how there might be some confusion about this. Remember we do not
censor posts. Nor do we control who can or cannot highlight (evince the fact
that your post that I am replying to seems to have, at a time that people say
they want more MOC posts highlighted, 7 spotlights and 2 highights).
So no matter HOW much we might want a post to go away, it remains public and
highlighted until the author requests that it be cancelled. Even if the author
is under timeout at the time, the author still is the controller on whether to
request a cancel or not. We can only suggest or request that something OUGHT to
be cancelled.
The admins have discussed this matter.
We have decided to explain a bit who has been timed out recently and why. We do
so this time because we feel it is necessary to do so to clear things up. We
reserve the right to go public or not go public in specific instances as we
choose and or see advisable. At this time the overall policy on going public is
still under internal discussion.
So, specifically...
This post: http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=50003
Ben was warned that excessive crossposting is not a good thing. He promised not
to do it again, saying he had learned his lesson from the bad effects of this
time.
This post: http://news.lugnet.com/color/?n=845
After discussion by the Admin Team, Duane was placed on timeout for 48 hours for
this post. He was asked to cancel the post and repost it with the profanity and
abusive language removed although no reduction in timeout was offered. Duane
promptly replied with a note stating (per the process we documented here
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=12017 ) that he acknowledged that he was
on timeout and understood and would comply with the timeout and not try to
circumvent it.
When asked why he would not consider a cancel in a subsequent note, he said that
he had posted with full knowledge that he was violating the ToS but felt
strongly enough about it that he was prepared to suffer the consequences. At no
time in his communication with the admins was he flippant or unwilling to
acknowledge that we were within our rights to do things and he always replied
promptly and politely to notes sent to him.
I would still like to see the post cancelled and reposted, sans the profanity
and abusive language. Because, I think the point he made is one that ought to be
made, whether or not I agree with it, but in a manner that is respectful of
others and in accordance with the ToS.
Duane still has posting rights in lugnet.admin.* and can reply here if he so
chooses.
This post: http://news.lugnet.com/color/?n=910
JoJo was sent a request to cancel and repost. He was warned that if he didn't he
might face a timeout. He did not reply to the message.
After some time, and further discussion by the Admin Team the decision was taken
to give him a 24 hour timeout. In the note telling him this (just as above) it
was stated that he needed to reply in the affirmative, stating that he
understood he was on timeout and would not try to circumvent it. He did not
reply to that message either.
After Rene posted the post I am replying to, Rene and I communicated. I
explained the above to him.
Then JoJo posted this: http://news.lugnet.com/color/?n=942 and I asked Rene why
JoJo was posting in violation of his timeout but wasn't responding to mail.
That (or something) apparently got JoJo to reply to me and he said that the
first warning note went into his spam folder and as for the second note, I got
the impression he didn't take it very seriously. When asked whether he would be
willing to cancel and repost, he refused, stating that the use of the word
causing the issue was key to his argument. He did, however say that he agreed
that such words are not at all appropriate for Lugnet, but that's actually why
he quoted them.
It's regrettable that the warning went into the spam folder, but it's not really
an Admin issue.
JoJo has now complied with the second note we sent, acknowledging that he has
received it and understands that he is under timeout.
I would really like to see JoJo cancel and repost, sans the profanity he quoted
(starring it out would be acceptable to me personally). Because, I think the
point he made is one that ought to be made, whether or not I agree with it, but
in a manner that is respectful of others and in accordance with the ToS.
JoJo still has posting rights in lugnet.admin.* and can reply here if he so
chooses.
This post: http://news.lugnet.com/color/?n=913
Calum was asked to cancel and repost. He did so, replacing it with this one:
http://news.lugnet.com/color/?n=924
At no time in his communication with the admins was he flippant or unwilling to
acknowledge that we were within our rights to do things and he always replied
promptly and politely to notes sent to him.
I am personally glad that Calum cancelled and reposted, sans the profanity he
quoted (starring it out would have been acceptable to me personally). Because, I
think the point he made is one that ought to be made, whether or not I agree
with it, but in a manner that is respectful of others and in accordance with the
ToS, and he has done just that.
There have not been any other timeouts given out during the course of this color
threadset.
Hopefully that makes it perfectly clear what exactly has transpired.
> You know that I'm always trying to be objective about different opinions and
> -above all- the strong differences between tendencies on LUGNET and on
> 1000steine.
That's good. I'm sure many people appreciate it. I appreciate it. Understanding
differences is important and is the first step to bridging gaps.
You have explained to me that 1000steine, by law, has a no profanity policy and
that you are personally liable to the authorities for the words of all members
and consequently you and your admins do often remove posts. So yes, there are
differences. LUGNET's no censorship policy makes things much more awkward when
issues arise, but many feel it is worth it.
> Should your measures become regularity, I see no occasion for me to
> try to explain here on LUGNET or mainly in the globalAFOLgroup how and why
> things are handled on 1000steine.de or to explain on 1000steine.de how and why
> things are handled here on LUGNET and what we're discussing about in the
> globalAFOLgroup.
As I said to you in my first private note, that's your perogative, but LUGNET
admins plan to continue to try to enforce the ToS here with the tools we have
available to us. I'm not sure I see why you would want to change your
participation in GlobalAFOL though, as I am not seeing the connection there.
> Instead of this, you could just gag people whenever feelings
> are running high here on LUGNET and I would just let the 1000steine-members
> complain about LUGNET in our forum on 1000steine.de.
To suggest that gagging people is what we are trying to do here (evince the
repeated *requests* (not demands) to everyone involved that they repost what
they want to say with very minor edits to remove profanity) is not really fair
or accurate.
We are not trying to stifle discussion. None of these actions have anything to
do with being pro or con the letter or other things. We are trying to maintain
an orderly and friendly environment. Nothing more.
Finally, I'll share one personal feeling, not wearing my Admin hat for just a
sec... I am confused and concerned as to why your post has received so many
spotlights. I don't get it. Everyone says they want to see MOCs. So why
spotlight this?
Larry Pieniazek
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | posting privileges to 1000steine-members revoked!?
|
| Larry, I have a real lack of understanding for your behaviour to revoke posting privileges to people who only quoted "bad words" to keep the context, while the original post with those "bad words" is still public and even highlighted. You know that (...) (19 years ago, 20-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general) !!
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
