 | | | | | | |
| |
|
> If anyone feels that Matthew's
> posting privileges should not be suspended, please speak up.
I think Mathew made a lot of points; some were quite enlightening, some were
pertinent and some I can't agree with one bit. However, as far as I can see it
looks like you reacted to his criticism of you more than anything else. This
makes you look weak. As does your past insinuations about his parents.
Further, your earlier referenced attack on JW also did you no favours, and
neither does your continued attack on Matthew when you have given him no
chance to reply.
The two posts I mentioned above (RE JW and Mattews Parents) are probably
amongst the most shameful made to LUGENT which I have read.
I said a week or so ago that kids read these pages too – with and without
their parents consents. So lets be nice to each other and talk Lego. Let’s be
inclusive, and not exclusive.
Scott A
> [1] Yes, I have permission to republish these comments here. It's part of
> the Terms of Use Agreement that anything submitted to LUGNET is subject to
> being republished. I don't regularly post feedback comments publicly, of
> course...this is the first time, and I hope it's the last.
You may be right - but I think you were wrong.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> > [1] Yes, I have permission to republish these comments here. It's part of
> > the Terms of Use Agreement that anything submitted to LUGNET is subject to
> > being republished. I don't regularly post feedback comments publicly, of
> > course...this is the first time, and I hope it's the last.
>
> You may be right - but I think you were wrong.
I had a look at the feedback page:
http://www.lugnet.com/admin/feedback/
3 Questions:
1. Does one have to read the terms / agree to the terms / be a member / to
post feedback?
2. Does line "here is your chance to share some thoughts privately" at least
imply the communication is private?
3. Does the "(optional)" tag on two of the boxes imply anonymity?
Scott A
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.terms, Scott Arthur writes:
> 1. Does one have to read the terms / agree to the terms / be a member / to
> post feedback?
What do you think?
> 2. Does line "here is your chance to share some thoughts privately" at least
> imply the communication is private?
You could infer that.
> 3. Does the "(optional)" tag on two of the boxes imply anonymity?
That would be a stretch.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.terms, Scott Arthur writes:
> > 1. Does one have to read the terms / agree to the terms / be a member / to
> > post feedback?
>
> What do you think?
>
> > 2. Does line "here is your chance to share some thoughts privately" at least
> > imply the communication is private?
>
> You could infer that.
I think it's a pretty strong implication that when you say "privately" that
the contents won't normally be revealed...
>
> > 3. Does the "(optional)" tag on two of the boxes imply anonymity?
>
> That would be a stretch.
I'm not sure I agree, actually... Again, it's a pretty strong implication.
I think (despite some comments by others that LUGNET has too many disclaimers,
etc, more than LEGO itself does in some cases) that you should crisp this up.
If what you meant is that the contributor can post feedback anonymously, and
you really really won't know who it was, but you reserve the right to make the
feedback public, then change "private" to "anonymous" and disclaim your right
to publicise it.
If the person's identity isn't really hidden from you (perhaps via technical
mechanisms, or perhaps only if the person is logged in, or whatever, I haven't
viewed the source of the page to even see what the field labels are and make
guesses) then don't imply anonymity.
Whatever reasons Scott might have for spotting these sorts of things aside, he
*is* rather good at it, sometimes. This is one of those times, you have a
documentation hole here. We all still love you, of course, but fix it. IMHO.
Else we'll be debating what the controlling legal authority was and what the
meaning of the word "is" was.
Anonymous/private/both feedback mechanisms have to be crystal clear or else
they don't get used. One fix, of course, is to remove this mechanism
completely. That may be best, I can't say what your intent in having it was in
the first place.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.terms, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> One fix, of course, is to remove this mechanism completely. That may be
> best, I can't say what your intent in having it was in the first place.
I think you're right -- removing it may be best, and I wouldn't miss it if it
were gone. It doesn't get used often, and it would do just as well to give an
email link there. As to its purpose/intention, it just happened to be an easy
thing to do, given some other stuff at a lower level that was there (CLSotW
input uses the same input mechanism). This was feeping creaturitis, I think,
falling into the category of "just because was extremely easy to implement
doesn't mean that was necessarily a wise idea." I think at the time I also
was wanting to avoid giving an e-mail link for spam harvesting reasons, but
spammers know how to send mail to foo@yourdomain.com anyway, so that's kinda
a moot issue.
Thanks for the suggestion -- I changed the page to an e-mail link -- no more
form.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.terms, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.terms, Scott Arthur writes:
> > 1. Does one have to read the terms / agree to the terms / be a member / to
> > post feedback?
>
> What do you think?
>
> > 2. Does line "here is your chance to share some thoughts privately" at least
> > imply the communication is private?
>
> You could infer that.
>
> > 3. Does the "(optional)" tag on two of the boxes imply anonymity?
>
> That would be a stretch.
>
> --Todd
I had hoped for a straight yes or no on each point, but never mind.
Scott A
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> However, as far as I can see it looks like you reacted to his
> criticism of you more than anything else.
Interesting guess, but wrong. Here are the threshold breakers:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=6608
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=6609
> > [1] Yes, I have permission to republish these comments here. It's part of
> > the Terms of Use Agreement that anything submitted to LUGNET is subject to
> > being republished. I don't regularly post feedback comments publicly, of
> > course...this is the first time, and I hope it's the last.
>
> You may be right - but I think you were wrong.
Thanks for your input. You may be right about it being a bad idea to post
feedback comments as a general rule, and I completely agree with that, as
alluded to above. However, in this case there is an additional bit of info
not mentioned above: In the dead-articles file on the server is a nearly
identical body of text that was submitted by MM as a post but rejected by
the server. According to HTTP logs, as soon as he realized he'd lost the
ability to post, he went straight to the feedback form and typed in basically
the same thing. I don't recall the exact differences but they were miniscule.
I don't think it was wrong to post the comments.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> > However, as far as I can see it looks like you reacted to his
> > criticism of you more than anything else.
>
> Interesting guess, but wrong. Here are the threshold breakers:
Not really a guess.
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=6608
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=6609
Both of which were before your post in the same thread:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=6616
But you did not disallow him for more than an hour after you read
the "threshold breakers", in the intervening time you read and replied to his
denigration(1) of you?
Further, I can't remember anyone being excluded from LUGNET without having a
right to reply in admin.general... ...but I don't claim to have 100% knowledge
of this area.
Scott A
(1) Tempted to say flame, but I think flames a best kept to e-mail. But those
who undertake flames don't get any "glory" from that.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > However, as far as I can see it looks like you reacted to his
> > > criticism of you more than anything else.
> > Interesting guess, but wrong. Here are the threshold breakers:
> Not really a guess.
Interesting "conclusion" then; still wrong.
> > http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=6608
> > http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=6609
>
> Both of which were before your post in the same thread:
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=6616
>
> But you did not disallow him for more than an hour after you read
> the "threshold breakers", in the intervening time you read and replied to
> his denigration(1) of you?
Sometimes I read chronologically and sometimes I read reverse-chronologically.
My newsreader sorts everything by time, and gives me a near-live feed, so if
I happen to be sitting at the screen and notice a new post appear, I'll see it
within typically 60 seconds of its having been posted. If I'm away from the
keyboard for a while and messages stack up, I often read messages in an ad hoc
order. My newsreader doesn't record the timestamp of the time I first passed
my read-cursor over an article, however, so I couldn't even begin to tell you
what order I read them, but in any event I wouldn't (polite way of saying you
shouldn't) make assumptions that messages get read chronologically by anyone
or that they're always at the keyboard to respond to something within a half
hour.
> Further, I can't remember anyone being excluded from LUGNET without having
> a right to reply in admin.general... ...but I don't claim to have 100%
> knowledge of this area.
Other than cases where someone's email was discovered to be a dead-end or be a
spammer, I believe that's correct. No one has been obviously malicious here
before. Is there a point to what you are suggesting? If you care to continue
discussions/relations with MM, is there something that is stopping you from
carrying on via email or RTL?
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> > > In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > > However, as far as I can see it looks like you reacted to his
> > > > criticism of you more than anything else.
> > > Interesting guess, but wrong. Here are the threshold breakers:
> > Not really a guess.
>
> Interesting "conclusion" then; still wrong.
>
>
> > > http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=6608
> > > http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=6609
> >
> > Both of which were before your post in the same thread:
> >
> > http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=6616
> >
> > But you did not disallow him for more than an hour after you read
> > the "threshold breakers", in the intervening time you read and replied to
> > his denigration(1) of you?
>
> Sometimes I read chronologically and sometimes I read reverse-chronologically.
> My newsreader sorts everything by time, and gives me a near-live feed, so if
> I happen to be sitting at the screen and notice a new post appear, I'll see it
> within typically 60 seconds of its having been posted. If I'm away from the
> keyboard for a while and messages stack up, I often read messages in an ad hoc
> order. My newsreader doesn't record the timestamp of the time I first passed
> my read-cursor over an article, however, so I couldn't even begin to tell you
> what order I read them, but in any event I wouldn't (polite way of saying you
> shouldn't) make assumptions that messages get read chronologically by anyone
> or that they're always at the keyboard to respond to something within a half
> hour.
But you would still have read at least read a message in order to reply to it?
But I take your point.
>
>
> > Further, I can't remember anyone being excluded from LUGNET without having
> > a right to reply in admin.general... ...but I don't claim to have 100%
> > knowledge of this area.
>
> Other than cases where someone's email was discovered to be a dead-end or be a
> spammer, I believe that's correct. No one has been obviously malicious here
> before. Is there a point to what you are suggesting? If you care to continue
> discussions/relations with MM, is there something that is stopping you from
> carrying on via email or RTL?
I'm not sure I do want to speak to him, but I'm also not sure about how is
banning came about. I pointed out posts earlier which (I think) were worse
than his. So why were they allowed, when his "input" is not?
Scott A
>
> --Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Scott A wrote:
> I'm not sure I do want to speak to him, but I'm also not sure about how is
> banning came about. I pointed out posts earlier which (I think) were worse
> than his. So why were they allowed, when his "input" is not?
My perception is that the banning occured because:
1. there was clearly a single individual who was fanning the flames of a
flame war which had potential to severely impact Lugnet's mission
2. the individual communicated pretty clear threats which were
sufficiently credible as to require immediate action (though obviously
banning the individual in and of itself does little to protect against
the threat [it does partially block the possibility of the individual
news bombing the server])
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> I'm not sure I do want to speak to him, but I'm also not sure about how is
> banning came about. I pointed out posts earlier which (I think) were worse
> than his. So why were they allowed, when his "input" is not?
Below is a copy of a message I have just written to Matthew via e-mail.
If Matthew does show up here today, please try to keep things as civil as
possible.
--Todd
_____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:24:33 -0400
From: Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com>
Organization: LUGNET - www.lugnet.com
To: moulton@hscis.net, moulton@innw.net
Subject: posting
Matthew,
There is some concern that your posting to LUGNET has been blocked without
giving you ample opportunity to respond and/or defend your position.
I think that your concerns are very important issues, but the way you
brought them up wasn't in a manner to which the community is accustomed.
I have removed the block for lugnet.admin.general, where you are free to
participate in discussions relating to the concerns you have raised, so long
as you avoid insulting people or causing additional flamewars. It is OK
with me if you flame, insult, or criticise me or LUGNET in
lugnet.admin.general, but please do not flame, insult, or criticise other
people there.
Thanks,
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(canceled)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > I'm not sure I do want to speak to him, but I'm also not sure about how is
> > > banning came about. I pointed out posts earlier which (I think) were worse
> > > than his. So why were they allowed, when his "input" is not?
> >
> > Below is a copy of a message I have just written to Matthew via e-mail.
> > If Matthew does show up here today, please try to keep things as civil as
> > possible.
>
> Unnecessary in my opinion. Scott always seems to want to play devil's
> advocate
Play? I am the devil's advocate. :-)
It can be a bit one sided here at times.
Scott A
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> Play? I am the devil's advocate. :-)
>
> It can be a bit one sided here at times.
Indeed. Politeness, civility, and camaraderie is *so* boring, really. :-)
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Todd,
I can understand your intention to being fair, but do you really think
this is necessary for this case? Do you really believe that someone
could have an acceptable excuse and/or explanation for such a situation?
I suggest letting him scrawl whatever place he wants, but not here.
Selçuk
Todd Lehman wrote:
>
> In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> > I'm not sure I do want to speak to him, but I'm also not sure about how is
> > banning came about. I pointed out posts earlier which (I think) were worse
> > than his. So why were they allowed, when his "input" is not?
>
> Below is a copy of a message I have just written to Matthew via e-mail.
> If Matthew does show up here today, please try to keep things as civil as
> possible.
>
> --Todd
>
> _____________________________________________________________________________
> Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:24:33 -0400
> From: Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com>
> Organization: LUGNET - www.lugnet.com
> To: moulton@hscis.net, moulton@innw.net
> Subject: posting
>
> Matthew,
>
> There is some concern that your posting to LUGNET has been blocked without
> giving you ample opportunity to respond and/or defend your position.
>
> I think that your concerns are very important issues, but the way you
> brought them up wasn't in a manner to which the community is accustomed.
>
> I have removed the block for lugnet.admin.general, where you are free to
> participate in discussions relating to the concerns you have raised, so long
> as you avoid insulting people or causing additional flamewars. It is OK
> with me if you flame, insult, or criticise me or LUGNET in
> lugnet.admin.general, but please do not flame, insult, or criticise other
> people there.
>
> Thanks,
> --Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Scott A wrote:
<snip>
>
> I'm not sure I do want to speak to him, but I'm also not sure about how is
> banning came about. I pointed out posts earlier which (I think) were worse
> than his. So why were they allowed, when his "input" is not?
>
> Scott A
Scott, actually I like some grinding gears just inside some other
regular ones, so I like reading your posts, but MM is completely out of
any comparison I think (actually I'm sure). It's not the just this or
that post from him here. He already explained his sick intentions for
starting this flame war KNOWINGLY. Just read everything from him, both
here and in RTL, and go to his site and read his documents relating the
issue, then I'm sure you would not need any more details about how much
the diameter of this *** ****.
Selçuk
| | | | | | |
