| |
Woah, I just realized this was going to lugnet.general, and not to
lugnet.admin.general. Should probably change the FUT!
In lugnet.general, David Koudys wrote:
> Then I started thinking that if the filter turns specific words into #%##$,
> and people know that, so they type S P A C E D words to get around the
> filter, then that person *knows* they're in violation of the TOU and had to
> work consiously and specifically to get around it, therefore appropriate
> measures would be used.
Yep. There's a kazillion ways to get around it, and I'd probably just prefer it
if the system caught casual accidental abuses of the system rather than the
pre-meditated violations. I didn't get a chance to see Willy's initial note, but
it sounds kinda like if he got a "are you sure you want to post this word right
here?" alert, that he might have just said "oh, oops" and fixed the problem.
> So it's not as if we need to include a word, and every derivative thereof, in
> the database.
Nope. Although I would probably include the most common abuses, like
interspersed spaces or periods, or exchanged letters-for-numbers or the like.
> So do we have different language filters for different regions, or do we just
> go to the lowest common denominator and add words that would be offensive in
> any part of the world to the database?
>
> 'Tis an interesting dilemma...
Yeah, same with being multi-lingual. I seem to recall that "cookie" (probably a
different spelling) was a rather vulgar term in Hungarian. But realistically,
I'm not sure what could be done about that. I'd just go with what is KNOWN to be
commonly offensive and go from there. In the end, it's Lugnet's image, so it can
decide what levels it wants to maintain in which venues.
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, David Eaton wrote:
> Yep. There's a kazillion ways to get around it, and I'd probably just prefer it
> if the system caught casual accidental abuses of the system rather than the
> pre-meditated violations. I didn't get a chance to see Willy's initial note, but
> it sounds kinda like if he got a "are you sure you want to post this word right
> here?" alert, that he might have just said "oh, oops" and fixed the problem.
That's exactly right. The note he posted excerpts from was not the first note,
or even the second, but rather the third. The first note merely asked if he
meant to use the word choices he used, and asked if he wanted to cancel.
What I got back from that note I would characterise as being deliberatly
transgressive, he was aware that it was an unacceptable usage and he didn't
care. I tried again anyway, it wasn't till the third note that I pointed out
that if he was knowingly violating the ToS he might be subject to timeout.
His reply to THAT note was to ask for the cancel, and further ask that his
membership be terminated and his posting privs rescinded. (2) And, to point out
that because he stuck to CAD he didn't pay attention to policy or the ToS.
Silly us, we just cancelled, and hoped that further gentle persuasion might in
future get him to change his mind and return as a productive member of the
LUGNET community. If we had, instead, done as he had asked, he wouldn't have
been able to (again, knowingly in violation of the TOS(2) post the post that
started this thread.
So when people accuse us of being "draconian" it REALLY gets my blood boiling
and gets me wondering why I even bother. If anything I think we're too gentle.
If it was just me, and I was feeling the way I do today, I'd run things more
like the way they do at CSF... threads get locked on a whim, entire threads
disappear without so much as a word to anyone about it, individual posts get
cancelled without any warning or explanation why, and there's a profanity filter
in place too, and oh ya, if the admins take a dislike to you, expect special
treatment.
Everyone seems to think that's just great, terrifically amusing. So why is it
that here, where we try to be a lot *less* draconian and explain everything, we
get labeled as draconian? That's just bogus.
Why bother? Somebody explain to me why LUGNET admins should care enough to take
all this grief, over and over? I'm tired of it. I have better things to do with
my time, frankly, than babysit a bunch of people who are trying to push my
buttons for their own amusement. (and of course the vast majority of people
aren't that way, but they're not the ones making trouble)
++Lar
1 - with his explicit permission to me by mail, I'll post the entire string and
you can see for yourself the intransigence and stubbornness on his side and my
multiple attempts to be gentle before explaining that he was leaving us no
choice. But I'm not expecting his permission because posting it would clearly
show he's not the martyr he's making himself out to be.
2 - it's ***off topic*** for .general and ***off topic*** for .announce, that's
a ToS violation right there, and of course it also contains a word that clearly
is not allowed, multiple times, and there is no "ignorance" or "slipup" defense
possible, he did it on purpose, deliberately knowing it's a violation. Is that
something a "good community member" would do? I don't think so.
|
|
| |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Why bother? Somebody explain to me why LUGNET admins should care
> enough to take all this grief, over and over? I'm tired of it. I have
> better things to do with my time, frankly, than babysit a bunch of
> people who are trying to push my buttons for their own amusement.
> (and of course the vast majority of people aren't that way, but
> they're not the ones making trouble)
This is something people need to really think about. I have a gut feeling
that all the admins (with perhaps the exception of Todd) are having these
feelings.
Big question:
Do you folks want Lugnet to continue and prosper?
Or do you want to constantly bicker about a fairly mild set of rules and
drive anyone who steps up to be an admin into walking away in disgust?
Frank Filz
|
|
|
