| |
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
|
|
|
