| |
I'm writing this as a user of Lugnet, not particularly as an Admin. I'm writing
this way to get the reactions of other users in this concept.
==
If Lugnet has added 'no cursing' to the ToU for the expressed purpose of making
this site friendly to children, then the current method of limiting cursing is
seriously defunct. People have, in the past, cursed and cursed a lot, and then
refused to request a cancel. These posts are still viewable today - by children
or anyone who comes accross them.
Leaving the policing of users to the users themselves has not worked, and can
not work within a large community such as Lugnet - especially when the only
penalty is the admonishment of your peers.
Lugnet should not try to define what 'cursing' is, as the concept is changing
over time and in responce to circumstances. Aggression without use of certain
key words should be limited just as much as cursing proper.
Lugnet Admins should be given the power of:
1. Directly editting the posts of users without their consent.
2. Directly canceling the posts of users without their consent.
3. Suspending and/or banning users who repeatedly break the ToU.
If Lugnet wishes to maintain the spirit of no censoring, then it could follow
Ray Sander's advise - http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=50243 - and provide a
link to an unedited copy of the message. A link that children would be advised
to avoid.
Thus no more need for Larry to track down users and try to politely urge them to
follow the ToU, and then have those members then come back and accuse Larry of
being draconian. The actions of the Admins would be invisible to the general
public, except as the generic 'Lugnet Administration has editted this post' and
their actions would be above scrutiny.
This would allow the Admins to be more immeadiate and complete in their attempt
to police Lugnet. It would also be easier for users to obey the ToU, especially
when they remain ignorant of policy updates in .admin.general. The whole
she-bang would flow a lot smoother.
-Lenny
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote: <snip> (...) *cough* /toggle filter on *cough* ;) Yes times change, but what word out of Carlin's 7 is appropriate now to post on LUGNET as opposed to when they first came out? Simple--none. Not one of (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| (...) Hear, hear. And perhaps that would cut down on the 'censorship whiners.' LUGNET is privately owned, it is NOT the public square. I really wish people would get over themselves. Anyways, it's not like I read in-depth enough for this to effect (...) (19 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| (...) Sadly the children tend to be the ones using the most unacceptable vernacular. (...) Yeah.. sure let the fox guard the henhouse. (...) As me Pappy used to say.. Sic' Em Boys! (...) I think we should give Lar a large Lego Bat to enforce the ToU (...) (19 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
