 | | | | | | |
| |
|
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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
<snip>
> 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
*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 those words should be used here.
So a language filter that would change those 7 words into $##W$%, as well as
whatever words that are 'dictated' by the evolution of society.
Sure have a link to the 'unedited post' or have a flag (or cookie) that will
filter or not depending on the setting--whatever works as far as codeing.
I'm not leaving LUGNET, no matter what Chris is offering me (inside joke so
don't worry 'bout it) I love it here, I love posting, I love reading, I love
the general 'good feeling' that comes with hanging out iwth many FOL's. The
issue, for me, is the uneven way this issue is handled and, as you yourself
stated, Lenny, some 'bad' posts are still there for all to see (since LUGNET
doesn't censor).
Where does that get us? Either we allow bad words or we don't and get rid of
them all. This 'laissez faire' sometimes and 'crackdown' at other times will
just embitter people.
It's like the guy who had one foot on fire and one foot encased in ice--the
average is a nice room temp, but still, neither foot is happy.
It needs fixing. I suggest that codeing'll do it, either as the person posts,
or as people display. It's been done before in other areas and I think it'll
work here.
Then again, I'm not a programmer, just tech support :)
Dave K
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, David Koudys wrote:
-snip-
> It needs fixing. I suggest that codeing'll do it, either as the person posts,
> or as people display. It's been done before in other areas and I think it'll
> work here.
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 their sole purpose is seeking out ToU violations and
bringing them to Admin's attention.
The thing about a word filter is that it won't necessarily catch all incidents
of a curse word, in which case we are back to square one again: how do the
Admins deal with posts that break the ToU? Direct post editting by Admins,
without user consent, is the easiest solution.
-Len
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, David Koudys wrote:
> -snip-
> > It needs fixing. I suggest that codeing'll do it, either as the person posts,
> > or as people display. It's been done before in other areas and I think it'll
> > work here.
> The thing about a word filter is that it won't necessarily catch all incidents
> of a curse word, in which case we are back to square one again: how do the
> Admins deal with posts that break the ToU? Direct post editting by Admins,
> without user consent, is the easiest solution.
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 place for a reason, and
that it's expected that they be followed. I think that's the root of Willy's
goodbye post - "you can't tell ME what to do!"
Direct post editing would solve this immediate problem, but surely ignite
others. This is a proud bunch, willing to fall on swords for matters of
principle - which I admire, actually. But the bottom line is, every society has
rules to follow, and LUGNET has its share, which I don't believe are onerous by
any means. We're still at the simple stage of "yes, there are rules, and you
should follow them."
I can't wait to see the firestorm if/when LUGNET staff start editing posts
without permission :)
OK, I put a smiley there, although it's not funny. I really think that a big
part is the fact that it all seems so random, done by random guys at random
times, that LUGNET members have no say in. Maybe that needs to change first, and
then once there's a feeling of "ownership" some changes can be made that won't
ignite the LUGNET forest.
Having said that - ya, Len, it's not a bad plan. AS LONG AS it's something that
is understood by everyone before it happens, and agreed upon by the LUGNET
administration.
- Kelly
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> I can't wait to see the firestorm if/when LUGNET staff start editing
> posts without permission :)
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 or dead (dead
being when someone kills it before posting it). The pending stage is
actually implemented as two half-steps, and the labels used intenerally
are "pen1" and "pen2". (Here, the word "pen" means holding area, not
"pending," althought it's a double meaning.) Currently, only "pen1" is
ever used -- this is where articles sit and wait for authentication. The
purpose of "pen2" was to (someday, perhaps) have a second pending stage
where, after authentication, an article then sits and waits (cue the "I'm
Just a Bill" music) for a moderator to approve the message.
I don't know that bringing that partial implementation to fruition,
however, would really address the issues at hand, since it would create
bottlenecks everywhere.
I am wondering what life would be like if offensive posts were simply
flagged as such (somehow) after the fact, and then (by default) any
flagged article's text would be hidden behind a warning.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> I can't wait to see the firestorm if/when LUGNET staff start editing posts
> without permission :)
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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Mark Papenfuss wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
>
>
> > I can't wait to see the firestorm if/when LUGNET staff start editing posts
> > without permission :)
>
> 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
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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Mark Papenfuss wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Mark Papenfuss wrote:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I can't wait to see the firestorm if/when LUGNET staff start editing posts
> > > without permission :)
> >
> > 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?
>
> 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.
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 had that ability since the dawn of time. Well OK maybe the dawn of
NNTP time.
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Mark Papenfuss wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Mark Papenfuss wrote:
> > 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?
>
> 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.
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 of the article's
content per se, it is part of the object that comprises the article as a
whole. When the FUT is overridden, the value of the original "Followup-To"
header is copied to a new "Original-Followup-To" header so that this
information is not lost. In my view, this is not editing an article's
content in a fundamental way. Strictly speaking, yes, it is editing an
article's content, since the file in which the article is stored on the
server is altered during this process.
What I would call "editing" is going in and changing, adding, or deleting
words in the the body or subject of an article, or in various other human-
language header fields such as "Organization." No admin is authorized to
make any such editing changes to articles, and there is no admin interface
for doing it, nor plans to create one.
Let me know if that didn't answer your question.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman wrote:
> Let me know if that didn't answer your question.
Yes, it did.
Thank you for taking the time.
M
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, David Koudys wrote:
> -snip-
> > It needs fixing. I suggest that codeing'll do it, either as the person posts,
> > or as people display. It's been done before in other areas and I think it'll
> > work here.
>
> 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 their sole purpose is seeking out ToU violations and
> bringing them to Admin's attention.
>
> The thing about a word filter is that it won't necessarily catch all incidents
> of a curse word, in which case we are back to square one again: how do the
> Admins deal with posts that break the ToU? Direct post editting by Admins,
> without user consent, is the easiest solution.
>
> -Len
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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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 think that'd be good enough.
-JSM
David Koudys wrote:
>
> 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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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 the core issue here - which is how to deal with people
who are doing the cussing.
-Lenny
In lugnet.admin.general, Jason S. Mantor wrote:
> 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 think that'd be good enough.
>
> -JSM
>
> David Koudys wrote:
>
> >
> > 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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
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 filters. I think there are two ways
to deal with that :
1. Make better filters
2. Find a way to convince people to play nice.
#2 can either be draconian or "soft touch" but, human nature being what
it is, I think #1 is the most effective way to meet the intended goal : (
If a filter had caught Willy's transgression then there likely wouldn't
have been any further discusion. It'd be done and over with.
Just think of it as validating user input. Not only can't some joker
buy negative quantities of widgets, we won't let them drop f-bombs in
the comments field.
I'll even volunteer to help code said filters : )
Leonard Hoffman wrote:
> 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.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
I think this would make Lugnet a better place. And so I say "Please moderate
me!"
-Jason
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Jason Spears wrote:
> > 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.
>
>
> I think this would make Lugnet a better place. And so I say "Please moderate
> me!"
>
> -Jason
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 is nice, but the time it takes them to do this, leaves too much time for
people to read the offending post and even quote it in their responses. And then
the admins will have to ask those posters to edit it, taking even more time.
No, I think it is good when an admin directly edits (takings out the offending
bits).
But to be absolutely clear towards Lugnet reader, posters and members, may I
suggest that some kind of note is placed in the edited post that tells you that
it has been edited? That will work two ways: when the original poster claims
that "that wasn't what I said" can be believed AND readers will know that the
original poster intended to use words that are not nice.
Mark "and the least edited poster this year is..." de Kock
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
> 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
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 my daily life
anymore. The negative environment here has slowly pushed me away, and is
continuing to do so. Not the policies--the people whining about them and making
demands they have no basis making, and the people bickering over petty things
like colors or 'TLC can do no right.'
Let's remember that these are LITTLE PLASTIC BRICKS we're talking about. Yeah
they're cool, but geeeez.
-Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Tim Courtney wrote:
> The negative environment here has slowly pushed me away, and is
> continuing to do so. Not the policies--the people whining about them and making
> demands they have no basis making, and the people bickering over petty things
> like colors or 'TLC can do no right.'
>
> Let's remember that these are LITTLE PLASTIC BRICKS we're talking about. Yeah
> they're cool, but geeeez.
>
> -Tim
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. Lugnet, unfortunately, is no
exception.
The proper cure to this is not for all the nice people to go away,
this will only make more people unhappy, including the ones who
decide to leave. Instead, try to put the situation on Lugnet into
perspective. The community has grown tremendously over the last few
years, so disagreements and conflicts will happen. However, not
everyone is a whiner all the time. In fact, very few people are
whiners at all. This is still a friendly place, the place where
I go for fun and inspiring communication about things I like a
lot but that absolutely, positively, do not really matter at all
in any kind of bigger perspective. To me, this is the very definition
of a good and inspiring hobby. Lugnet is as much a part of my Lego
hobby as the actual building, and I still like it a lot.
I have seen stress do really ugly things to nice people.
Let's not have this happen on Lugnet, please. This, if
any place on Earth or on the Internet, should have every
possibility of being a friendly place also in the future.
We're only a few thousand people worldwide, and we share a
hobby that should make us all feel great about this place
and what we do in here.
The last time I got upset over Lego was when my cousin and
I fought over who should have the ladder for his fire engine.
We were six, and we both thought it was silly even then
and simply went back to building after a short while.
I believe a serving of milk and cookies was involved to
put the fight into perspective. Perhaps we should try that?
"You have been administered a serving of milk and cookies by
the administrators. Please get up from your computer and
come back in a short while. We'll all be waiting for you."
We *should* be able to get along, right?
Stefan G
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Stefan Gustavson wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Tim Courtney wrote:
>
> > The negative environment here has slowly pushed me away, and is
> > continuing to do so. Not the policies--the people whining about them and making
> > demands they have no basis making, and the people bickering over petty things
> > like colors or 'TLC can do no right.'
> >
> > Let's remember that these are LITTLE PLASTIC BRICKS we're talking about. Yeah
> > they're cool, but geeeez.
> >
> > -Tim
>
> 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. Lugnet, unfortunately, is no
> exception.
>
> The proper cure to this is not for all the nice people to go away,
> this will only make more people unhappy, including the ones who
> decide to leave. Instead, try to put the situation on Lugnet into
> perspective. The community has grown tremendously over the last few
> years, so disagreements and conflicts will happen. However, not
> everyone is a whiner all the time. In fact, very few people are
> whiners at all. This is still a friendly place, the place where
> I go for fun and inspiring communication about things I like a
> lot but that absolutely, positively, do not really matter at all
> in any kind of bigger perspective. To me, this is the very definition
> of a good and inspiring hobby. Lugnet is as much a part of my Lego
> hobby as the actual building, and I still like it a lot.
>
> I have seen stress do really ugly things to nice people.
> Let's not have this happen on Lugnet, please. This, if
> any place on Earth or on the Internet, should have every
> possibility of being a friendly place also in the future.
> We're only a few thousand people worldwide, and we share a
> hobby that should make us all feel great about this place
> and what we do in here.
>
> The last time I got upset over Lego was when my cousin and
> I fought over who should have the ladder for his fire engine.
> We were six, and we both thought it was silly even then
> and simply went back to building after a short while.
> I believe a serving of milk and cookies was involved to
> put the fight into perspective. Perhaps we should try that?
>
> "You have been administered a serving of milk and cookies by
> the administrators. Please get up from your computer and
> come back in a short while. We'll all be waiting for you."
>
> We *should* be able to get along, right?
>
> Stefan G
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) but that does not mean we must muster our emotional ties to dissent.
And I second the serving of milk and cookies. Cookies *mmmmm*
- Andrew P. Saada <><
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Stefan Gustavson wrote:
> "You have been administered a serving of milk and cookies by
> the administrators. Please get up from your computer and
> come back in a short while. We'll all be waiting for you."
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Classic Red Barn kit: http://www.lionsgatemodels.com/cat-barn.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Get FREE Hospital instructions: http://www.lionsgatemodels.com
BrickLink Lego parts store: http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=Kevinw1
The Guild of Bricksmiths(TM): http://www.bricksmiths.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
> 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.
Sadly the children tend to be the ones using the most unacceptable vernacular.
>
> 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.
Yeah.. sure let the fox guard the henhouse.
> 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.
As me Pappy used to say.. Sic' Em Boys!
> 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.
I think we should give Lar a large Lego Bat to enforce the ToU with!
> 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
Hey look the world is a diverse and unusual place, full of wackos, wierdos, and
loonies. Personally, I'm all three.. but that's beside the point.. I look at it
this way- You want to piddle and moan and froth at the mouth.. fine.. do it.. On
your own server. Wether we like it or not, the Server, Internet connection etc.
is paid for and thereby owned by Todd! You don't like how he wants to run it?
Great.. Run your own ya lazy, cheap gits!
Todd tries and run things in a nice soft, squishy P.C. fashion.. you crank
yankers who just want to moan, go start your own board, admin it, buy the disk,
pay for the power and the internet uplink. Carlin's 7 USA words are nothing! If
you included all the countries which speak english and all of their variants of
vernacular and added the other languages in, we'd all be in constant violation
of someone's local form of vile vernacular. So when a board or sysadmin limits a
couple of hundred words.. wine on.. they might just decide to get really tough
about it.
Todd, my vote is this - Sir, you own it, run it as you like and the rest can run
their own!
| | | | | | |
