Subject:
|
Re: wish's - Contest canceled
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 3 Mar 2005 22:26:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1548 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Frank Filz wrote:
> > David Koudys wrote:
> > > If you're not having fun, get out. Take a break. If you are so
> > > close to the edge where you state, "WHy do I even bother! I've got
> > > better things to do with my time", you are, in fact, stating that
> > > you need to step away.
> >
> > And that's what some of us are considering. What we are doing
> > however, by pointing out that we are close to the edge is that
> > people are making Lugnet unfun to run. If all the admins decide it's
> > unfun, then Lugnet goes away.
> >
> > I hope everyone will take a moment and think about that.
> >
> > Think about the precedent set by having a contest to try and drive
> > an admin away.
> >
> > Think about it hard.
>
> With due respect, what recourse do we have if an admin is found to be
> grossly unsatisfactory in some way? I'm not saying that any of them
> are, but what if it should occur? Does the average LUGNET member
> just sit around waiting for that admin to leave?
>
> Or is a private email the preferred means of communication? If so,
> what happens after that? Is there an actual provision for removing
> an admin? What would constitute sufficient grounds for doing so?
> And if the admin *isn't* removed, does the LUGNET member just have to
> grin and bear it?
>
> In any case, I agree that a drive-away-so-and-so-contest isn't the
> most productive course of action.
>
> This may be explicitly addressed somewhere in LUGNET policy, but I
> didn't know where to look.
Respectfull communication. Which has not been happening here. I think Todd
has been pretty clear for quite some time what the policy on language is.
Sure, it isn't spelled out (and the admin team has recognized that the TOU
DO need updating), but when an admin states that a particular word isn't
acceptable, one can either accept that, one can continue to use the word, or
one can make a respectful request for an explanation. Of course if someone
just asked for an explanation, asking again just because you didn't like the
answer the first time may not be respectfull. And I don't think it's
reasonable for the TOU to list the words that are unnacceptable (in fact,
forcing rules to list out every example of something that is wrong is
untenable - do we give someone a pass because they insulted someone in
German because we didn't include German words?).
Something to consider also - the admin team is a group of people, and we
have already set a policy (and I thought we publicised it) that it takes
several admins to reccomend a timeout (and in fact a single admin can veto).
And believe me, if an admin really is being abusive, I will be one of the
first to call for his removal.
I think perhaps that it might be better for significant admin issues to be
taken up in e-mail, and only be made public if the e-mail communication
really seems to be failing (with the recognition that the case might be that
all the admins disagree with you, and you might be quickly painting yourself
out of the picture).
But if the admin team isn't given a chance to find a workable solution
without burning out, Lugnet is going to die.
That's why I've asked everyone to think on the implications of what has
happened.
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: wish's - Contest canceled
|
| (...) **snip** (...) Yeah, I thought the guidelines might have been spelled-out already but didn't know where. Now that I think of it, I remember that Larry answered my earlier question about timeout policy. But now that you mention it, I have a (...) (19 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: wish's - Contest canceled
|
| (...) With due respect, what recourse do we have if an admin is found to be grossly unsatisfactory in some way? I'm not saying that any of them are, but what if it should occur? Does the average LUGNET member just sit around waiting for that admin (...) (19 years ago, 3-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
47 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
|
|
|
|
