To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.generalOpen lugnet.admin.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / General / 2079
2078  |  2080
Subject: 
Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general
Date: 
Sun, 4 Jul 1999 19:02:13 GMT
Viewed: 
1960 times
  
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
In lugnet.admin.general, "Greg Majewski" <citrusx__@yahoo.com> writes:
How about people just use whatever they have been called in the past? As for
new members and garbage names, you could have a submit area that sends chosen
names to a special LUGNET email, where they then could be manually read, and
the garbage names could be denied memberships until they change their name to
an acceptable one. A little redundant, I know, but I am just throwing in my two
cents..

That was a thought, but think about it from the censorship standpoint:

On the legal side, when you start trying to filter out things that are
offensive or vulgar or profane, you open yourself up to more scrutiny if you
then accidentally miss something and it passes through and someone really
freaks out.  And I believe you're at risk even if you don't advertise that
you're censoring (or keeping things 'clean').  That's an important concern.

On the social side, and this is probably the bigger concern, there are all
sorts of possible usernames that walk the gray area between what would pass
and what would fail.  Certainly there are things that would obviously fail
that weren't offensive, and things that would obviously pass that weren't
offensive, but things aren't always black and white.  When you draw the line
(and it might even drift over time) and consider all of the gray-area cases,
some people are bound to get very upset if their username isn't passed,
especially if someone with a very similar name was passed and they were
failed (it might have been on purpose for very subtle reasons or it might
simply have been accidental, who knows).  The gray area cases are 100%
subjective (kind of by definition of their being gray), and this would bring
things into a very uncomfortable territory.

--Todd

If you look at this situation from how it exists already, you will find that
99% of the internet's Lego community are civilized adults, the rest being
civilized teenagers or whatever, so you don't really have to worry about "gray
areas," at least not how I look at it. Sure, some people out there may be loud
and annoying, but they aren't offensive or vulgar.
Greg
citrusx__@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Dome/1888/



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more?
 
(...) Oh, believe me, I *have* looked at it...! :-) Been seriously looking at this on and off for years... (...) The gray areas I'm thinking of aren't so much the offensive or vulgar things (although I'm sure there are some things which are both (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more?
 
(...) That was a thought, but think about it from the censorship standpoint: On the legal side, when you start trying to filter out things that are offensive or vulgar or profane, you open yourself up to more scrutiny if you then accidentally miss (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

112 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR