| |
(this is a repost with some inappropriate language and phrasing removed)
In lugnet.admin.general, David Koudys wrote:
> Explain to me how I violated the ToU?
You posted a post that contained a word that clearly violates the ToU. It
matters not whether you quoted it, or what context you used it in, that
particular word is one we come down hard on, consistently. We always have.
Further, you cannot claim that you did not know you were in violation because
your post pretty clearly shows you do know it.
Therefore, were it up to me and me alone, all else under the present system as
it stands now (flawed as it may be, it nevertheless **is** the system as it
stands now) you would be on indefinite timeout till a cancel request came in,
plus some definite period tacked on as a measure to remind you that you cannot
flout the rules, even to make a point. The size of the definite timeout would,
in my view, depend on your level of intransigence and the number of times we had
to remind you that the rules apply to you before you agreed that they did. This
is, I think, at least the 3rd or 4th reminder.
We do not have to send warning notes or cancel requests if we have reason to
believe the poster knows better.
You know better. I know you know better, and you know you know better. Aren't
you, at one level, ashamed of being such a baby? Be a man. Ask for a cancel.
Agitate for changes in the rules if you like (and when you do so in a reasoned
manner we are very likely to listen to you because you have a very solid head on
your shoulders) but do not violate them while you do so.
This isn't 1965, you are not Dr. King and we're not talking about oppresssion
here, we are talking about adherence to rules that you already explicitly agreed
to adhere to, on a private site, and one designed to talk about toys, no less.
This is not some big civil rights thing where civil disobedience is useful or
noble or admirable.
JoJo, especially, knows better as well. He has ALREADY been warned that he
cannot quote posters the way he's doing, and in my view, he's pushing buttons to
see what happens. At this point, were it me, I'd ban him without any
reinstatement opportunity at all, because he's demonstrated a wilful disregard
for the ToS.
Give me a break. It's all very tiresome.
We admins are trying to be as light about this as we can in order to make the no
censorship model work, we ask and cajole and plead, but as someone pointed out
in response to Kelly, it means that we have to go all the way around the barn 5
times where on other sites the trip is 2 steps.
What a waste.
I've half a mind to press for dumping the no censorship tradition and move to a
model like everyone else uses... filters, threadlocking, moderation after the
fact, cancellation by admins without respecting the poster's desires in the
matter and the whole nine yards. LUGNET maybe has outgrown the noble "we're all
friends here, peer pressure will do the trick" experiment of 6 years ago.
Someone explain to me why a no censorship policy is better than that alernative,
given that there is a minority of immature users here that seems bound and
determined to flout the ToS and to cause uproars like this one every so often.
Someone explain to me why at the premier destination for this hobby, one where
kids do come to because they're excited about the product and the creations, and
one where reputations of the entire community are made or broken by what the
mundanes first see when they start reading... explain how it's a good thing that
some blowhard can say whatever swear word he wants whenever he wants and then
spout off about his RIGHTS being trampled in such a way that it gets to be the
top story?
Give me a break. What a turnoff.
You 11 people that spotlighted that first post... shame on you. You're not the
kind of fans I want to help. Not at all.
++Lar (not speaking officially, not in the slightest)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Take a deep breath. Go for a walk. (...) I certainly find this paragraph combative. It certainly is name calling, and questioning of manhood. (...) In some ways it is similar. (...) You have my permission to take a break. In fact I recommend (...) (20 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
17 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
|
|
|
|
