Subject:
|
Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 1 Mar 2005 23:53:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
732 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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
|
| (...) 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) !
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
21 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
|
|
|
|
