 | | Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
|
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 (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | 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
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, David Koudys wrote: -snip- (...) Hey Dave, Thanks for the thoughtful responce. The effort has been to fully enforce incidents of cursing, regardless. I've suggested a few times in enlisting more people as 'Mods' for whom (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
|
(...) That's my sticking point too... we can technically put a filter in place, but that won't stop people from going around it. If they are going to violate the ToS, they're going to work at it. It's more a matter of understanding that rules are in (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
|
(...) If the code puts ###@%% in for a list of words, then any word that 'slips thru' would be manually edited such that the word is now #@%#@#. The code'll catch the 95 percent, thus freeing up admins time for the other 5. Dave K (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
|
(...) Kelly, I think you misspelled "poopstorm." Anyway, that reminds me: when the posting authentication stuff went in a few years back, the architecture underneath was such that a post goes through "stages" of life: submitted, pending, then live (...) (19 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
|
(...) I think this would make Lugnet a better place. And so I say "Please moderate me!" -Jason (19 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
|
(...) if/when? Does Lugnet not view editing the FUT editing? This is widley done by the Admins. I thought if you changed anything about a post than you were editing it. Am I wrong in this assumption? M (19 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
|
(...) I second that, Jason. Lugnet is one of the last forums on the 'net where admins don't moderate posts directly. Fortunately, direct editing hasn't been needed often. But in some cases, it was needed. Ofcourse, asking the poster to do it himself (...) (19 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
|
Yes. nicely put. admittedly a filter can be good but not perfect. Even if it only catches 50%, it's helped out and that would only leave the extreme cases for the admins to deal with. The occasional slip would be taken care of most of the time. I (...) (19 years ago, 2-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)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
|
The problem is that we're not dealing with momentary issues where someone mistypes or whatnot. Willy went out of his way to use a cuss, and then went out of his way to obfuscate the Admin's process of dealing with his cuss. A filter won't deal with (...) (19 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
|
(...) It is a sad fact that people in the Western world are getting more and more stressed out, and the result is often bickering and whining in all kinds of situations which used to be a source for relaxation, all smiles and warm, fuzzy feelings. (...) (19 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
|
OK, maybe we really do need two different discussions to happen, but the two are inextricably intertwined. Filters would catch the slips and that'd be a Good Thing(TM). Admins then have to deal with the bad eggs who intentionally try to beat the (...) (19 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
|
(...) Hear, hear! Tim and Stefan, I wholeheartedly concur. To become stressed out over little plastic bricks--however valuable they may be--is quite silly when you think about it. We all have our differences (sorry, that's just a "duh" statement) (...) (19 years ago, 3-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
|
(...) Mmmm, milk and cookies! My favorite diet! Unfortunately, this might backfire by encouraging people to post things that would result in being served milk and cookies. After all, milk and cookies are a reward, not a punishment :-) Kevin (...) (19 years ago, 3-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
|
(...) I would actually like an aswer to this. I would like to know what is and what is not considered 'editing' by the Lugnet Admin team. M (19 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
|
(...) Well I dunno about any other editing, but I don't consider changing the FUT as editing, as it is only a suggestion anyway. All they are changing is where they'd like followups to go - you are still free to override that. And NNTP admins have (...) (19 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
|
(...) This hasn't been discussed on the list, and I'm sure there are probably a variety of opinions, but I'll offer mine. Overriding the FUT of an article alters the article's metadata item known as the "Followup-To" header. While this is not part (...) (19 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
|
(...) Yes, it did. Thank you for taking the time. M (19 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
