 | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, James Simpson writes:
>
> > I fully supported the ban on his posting privileges. His repeated diatribes
> > that "James is dead. Deal with it", or whatever was reason enough - not
> > because
> > he in fact holds that uncompassionate and cruel sentiment, but because his
> > repeated expression of it was objectively calculated to flame and offend.
>
> Your right. And for that reason, I would support banning him, as well.
> If he continues to post in a way that is designed only to offend, I would be
> one of the first asking to see him gone, as I was before. But if he's really
> learned that kind of behaviour won't fly on Lugnet, and he wants to stay and
> abide by the social order we have here, why not give him a second chance?
>
> eric
Would you give cancer or a terrorist a second chance?
Don't fall for plastic sentiment, faux remorse, and hollow words...
John
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, John Robert-Blaze Kanehl writes:
> Would you give cancer or a terrorist a second chance?
First of all, I'm not 100% sure the term "second chance" applies. After all,
he is a new member. We're not talking about "fool me once, shame on you, fool
me twice, shame on me" here. I'm also not suggesting that *every* time he acts
up Lugnet should be forgiving. He is a new member, he is used to The Ways of
Usenet (which are *not even close* to The Ways of Lugnet) and I am willing to
believe him when he says he sees the difference and wants to participate in
Lugnet.
Second, and much more importantly, his posts are not going to kill anyone, like
cancer or a terrorist would.
> Don't fall for plastic sentiment, faux remorse, and hollow words...
Until he proves it one way or the other, how can you be so sure they're
plastic, faux, or hollow?
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Well I promised I wouldn't get to involved in this discussion and I won't in a
detailed way. I just wanted to say that I have agreed with just about
everything Eric J. has had to say in this discussion.
Certain things have been brought into this discussion that never should have
including anything Matthew has on his site no matter how inappropriate. The
only thing in question here are Matthew's posts which as Eric said can't
physically hurt anyone.
Yes, I have my doubts as to if Matthew can change his ways and I can't say I
would care one way or the other if he was given another chance. I just don't
think we should ostracize someone for having a disgusting graphic on their
site. It is their right and we shouldn't ban him because of, or in part
because of it. We should only look at this in terms of what he posted on
LUGNET and then it is up to Todd to determine if Matthew should be let back in
because to paraphrase Matthew "This is Todd's house and he can do what he
wants".
I realize some of my post does not apply directly to this part of the thread.
I am just posting my feelings about the thread in general and will go back to
reading it for now.
Eric Kingsley
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, John Robert-Blaze Kanehl writes:
>
> > Would you give cancer or a terrorist a second chance?
>
> First of all, I'm not 100% sure the term "second chance" applies. After all,
> he is a new member. We're not talking about "fool me once, shame on you, fool
> me twice, shame on me" here. I'm also not suggesting that *every* time he
> acts up Lugnet should be forgiving. He is a new member, he is used to The
> Ways of Usenet (which are *not even close* to The Ways of Lugnet) and I am
> willing to believe him when he says he sees the difference and wants to
> participate in Lugnet.
>
> Second, and much more importantly, his posts are not going to kill anyone,
> like cancer or a terrorist would.
>
> > Don't fall for plastic sentiment, faux remorse, and hollow words...
>
> Until he proves it one way or the other, how can you be so sure they're
> plastic, faux, or hollow?
>
> eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, John Robert-Blaze Kanehl writes:
> > Would you give cancer or a terrorist a second chance?
>
> First of all, I'm not 100% sure the term "second chance" applies. After
> all, he is a new member. We're not talking about "fool me once, shame on
> you, fool me twice, shame on me" here. I'm also not suggesting that *every*
> time he acts up Lugnet should be forgiving. He is a new member, he is used
> to The Ways of Usenet (which are *not even close* to The Ways of Lugnet) and
> I am willing to believe him when he says he sees the difference and wants to
> participate in Lugnet.
I'm sure the phrase "new member" must means different things to different
people -- perhaps two weeks to one person, two months to another, or even two
years to another. In any case, for the record, Matthew's first post here was
on April 9, 2000 -- some 6 1/2 months ago. Not that it has any bearing on
what happened (IMHO).
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> I'm sure the phrase "new member" must means different things to different
> people -- perhaps two weeks to one person, two months to another, or even two
> years to another. In any case, for the record, Matthew's first post here was
> on April 9, 2000 -- some 6 1/2 months ago.
Agreed. I went and looked using the search function. I may have missed some
but I found a number of posts from Matthew going quite a ways back. Some were
hyperbolic, but none (that I found, but I may have missed some) were
vitriolic. Nothing wrong with hyperbole, mind you.
> Not that it has any bearing on
> what happened (IMHO).
Actually it does, I think. If you've been around a while there is no longer
the "well I'm new and didn't know how things work" excuse. Not that it is a
valid one even for the most rank newcomer, because the posting setup screen
requires you to verify that you have read the ToS.
So, OK, it doesn't have any bearing.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes: • <snip?
> > Not that it has any bearing on
> > what happened (IMHO).
>
> Actually it does, I think. If you've been around a while there is no longer
> the "well I'm new and didn't know how things work" excuse. Not that it is a
> valid one even for the most rank newcomer, because the posting setup screen
> requires you to verify that you have read the ToS.
OK quick question(1).
Now I don't think many/any of us know much of Matthew other than he has some
personal issues to work out and that he likes to cause havoc. So here's the
question.
Assume that Matthew is say 14 and he is banned "for Life". That would make
hime young and probably pretty immature. What if say 4-6 years down the road
he wants reinstatement because he has trully "seen the error of his ways".
Will there be a mechanism for that?(2)
Also say Matthew is 30 but receives counceling and decides to change his ways
what then?
Eric Kingsley
1. In my experiance there is no such thing as a quick question ;-).
2. I have accepted the fact that Matthew is going to be banned and I am OK with
that. I just want to make sure everything has been thought through first.
This is a precedent setting move and I think you (Todd) need to be very careful
in the way you handle the issue because people will refer back to this
discussion for years to come as other situations arrise.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
> 2. I have accepted the fact that Matthew is going to be banned and I am OK
> with that. I just want to make sure everything has been thought through
> first. This is a precedent setting move and I think you (Todd) need to be
> very careful in the way you handle the issue because people will refer back
> to this discussion for years to come as other situations arrise.
It's very difficult -- and I'm not even going to try -- to sum everything up
in a nice simple pat statement (not that you're asking for one), since, to
various extents, I agree with almost everything that everyone here has said.
My opinions are most in line with these posts which stood out in my mind as
I got caught up on reading today:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=6688
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=8125
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=8016
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=8039
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=8060
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=8042
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=8000
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=8095
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=8100
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=8119
In terms of a bottom line, take the sandbox-in-the-backyard analogy. "There's
always one in the crowd." Occasionally there is just going to be some bully
or troublemaker in the neighborhood who simply refuses to play well with
others. For whatever deep underlying reasons, they can't or don't want to
get along and clearly don't belong. They can go start their own sandbox and
play in it and make up whatever rules best fit them. Maybe others will go
join them...fine...not here.
At this time, Matthew is persona non grata. Not for his opinions, not for
what he has on his website, and not for his being personally disliked by many
people, but for how he has intentionally disrupted peace and harmony, attacked
people, used foul language, made what are judged by many to be threats,
admitted that he plotted to cause a large commotion, and relished in self-
described past mischief elsewhere. Those are things that this site is not
about. Although we the community have generally been tolerant of a little
vitriol here and there, never before has someone calculatedly done so much
in such a short amount of time.
That's where things stand.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
> 2. I have accepted the fact that Matthew is going to be banned and I am OK
> with that.
Me too.
> I just want to make sure everything has been thought through first.
> This is a precedent setting move and I think you (Todd) need to be very
> careful in the way you handle the issue because people will refer back to this
> discussion for years to come as other situations arrise.
Not sure why he needs to be very careful, since the decision years from now
whether or not to banish someone else will still be Todd's decision to make,
not mine or yours or anyone else's (unless Todd decides to make it someone
else's).
That's not to say Todd ISN'T careful, for his own reasons, but I don't think
his caution is forced on him from any external source.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> That's not to say Todd ISN'T careful, for his own reasons, but I don't think
> his caution is forced on him from any external source.
I think Eric meant it as wise advice.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> > He is a new member,
> I'm sure the phrase "new member" must means different things to different
> people -- perhaps two weeks to one person, two months to another, or even two
> years to another. In any case, for the record, Matthew's first post here was
> on April 9, 2000 -- some 6 1/2 months ago. Not that it has any bearing on
> what happened (IMHO).
D'oh. I don't know where I got the impression that he was fairly new (to
posting, at least, because there's no way to tell how long someone's been
lurking).
That does color things slightly- after all, it means he's been here long enough
to know what kind of behaviour is deemed appropriate, and what kind isn't, and
on the other, it means that he's not a new member, so every post he makes isn't
going to have some ulterior motive.
I'm not sure if that changes how I feel, but frankly I'm just kind of tired of
the whole situation. I've said before, I won't be upset if he stays and I
won't be upset if he goes. He did, in my opinion, violate the spirit of the
T&C, and that makes it up to you what to do with him.
The only thing that got me really riled in the whole situation is people's
obsession with making his *viewpoints* a reason to ToSs him, which I strongly
disagree about.
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> The only thing that got me really riled in the whole situation is people's
> obsession with making his *viewpoints* a reason to ToSs him, which I strongly
> disagree about.
I agree. However...
I think that there were people who felt that way initially, but that many, if
not all, have come around to reject that view. And that's a good thing. For
the few remaining, can you identify yourselves and post reasons why we need to
judge opinions and not behaviour?
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
>
> > The only thing that got me really riled in the whole situation is people's
> > obsession with making his *viewpoints* a reason to ToSs him, which I strongly
> > disagree about.
>
> I agree. However...
>
> I think that there were people who felt that way initially, but that many, if
> not all, have come around to reject that view. And that's a good thing. For
> the few remaining, can you identify yourselves and post reasons why we need to
> judge opinions and not behaviour?
I just wanted to add that I agree with Eric J. once again. I know I and a few
others were playing a bit of devils advocate durring this discussion. Thats
mostly because I thought several peoples reasoning for banishment were
misguided.
There was one other thing that bothered me durring the discussion however and
that is the fact that it seems some people decided to tell Todd privately that
if Matthew was not banished that they would leave. Because this was done
privately I can't quote word for word but it all sounds like threats to me and
we don't need that here. I still feel that some people need to learn how to
disagree (politely of course). We are not all going to agree all the time and
trying to force a viewpoint with threats of any kind is not the right way to go
about it. Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree and be done with it.
Finally I would like to say that I am not in any way sad to see Matthew go. I
just wanted to try and do my part to ensure that he was banished for the right
reasons.
Eric Kingsley
The New England LEGO Users Group
http://www.nelug.org/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
> I just wanted to add that I agree with Eric J. once again. I know I and a few
> others were playing a bit of devils advocate durring this discussion. Thats
> mostly because I thought several peoples reasoning for banishment were
> misguided.
And/or perhaps in some cases overstated. Or overly stressed.
> There was one other thing that bothered me durring the discussion however and
> that is the fact that it seems some people decided to tell Todd privately that
> if Matthew was not banished that they would leave. Because this was done
> privately I can't quote word for word but it all sounds like threats to me and
> we don't need that here.
I sent Todd a few private e-mails on this subject (most of which dealt pretty
specifically with apologizing for blowing my top and asking him to remove my
emotionally charged posts) but I never "threatened" to leave in them.
But I'm not so sure I would take a statement like this:
If people who revel in disruptive behaviour are allowed to stay here and
remain disruptive I may have to stop participating in these discussions.
as a threat. Far from it, in fact. I'd see that as a very honest request for
action. I know you're member #15 but I'm not sure (poor memory on my part -
forgive me) how near the beginning of LUGNET you began participating here. As
far back as what I guess is now called the alpha testing phase it was clear
that one of the hopes for LUGNET was to bring back to the community people who
had felt compelled to leave it because of various problems with RTL - be they
mean-spirited diatribes or the semi-constant flood of commerce-related
postings.
So now, especially given that Todd has stated clearly that if it had been
obvious at the time that Matthew was the same person as the Mad Hatter of 1998
(9?) RTL infamy, he would have not been allowed in the door, to hear that some
might express their dissatisfaction by, as you put it "threatening" to leave,
I'm not surprised, or even bothered. In this specific case we had a person
who had a proven track record of disruptive, rude, antisocial behaviour. Many
people claimed that such a track record shouldn't come into play ToS-wise, but
I'm sorry, if it is good enough for Todd, it's good enough for me. This
person did something that certainly could have led to the sort of full-scale
slugfest he caused (and he DID cause it - make no mistake - even without his
posts available it is clear that he drove the flamefest) on RTL. Given all
that, I'm not surprised that some might choose to leave were he allowed to
stay - in fact I'd be surprised if some didn't. Talk about cheapening the
neighborhood.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
<snip>
> > There was one other thing that bothered me durring the discussion however and
> > that is the fact that it seems some people decided to tell Todd privately
> > that if Matthew was not banished that they would leave. Because this was
> > done privately I can't quote word for word but it all sounds like threats to
> > me and we don't need that here.
>
> I sent Todd a few private e-mails on this subject (most of which dealt pretty
> specifically with apologizing for blowing my top and asking him to remove my
> emotionally charged posts) but I never "threatened" to leave in them.
>
> But I'm not so sure I would take a statement like this:
>
> If people who revel in disruptive behaviour are allowed to stay here and
> remain disruptive I may have to stop participating in these discussions.
That statement I would not take as being a threat but like I said I don't know
what people said to Todd privately and I assume there were many people writing
Todd privately about the topic and some of those may or may not have threatened
to leave.
Actually I may have missremembered the "threaten" part. As Todd's post that I
remember only said people said "some have indicated that they may leave if he
stays". It does not say threaten so I could be mistaken in my assumption that
they were threats.
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=8113
>
> as a threat. Far from it, in fact. I'd see that as a very honest request for
> action. I know you're member #15 but I'm not sure (poor memory on my part -
> forgive me) how near the beginning of LUGNET you began participating here. As
> far back as what I guess is now called the alpha testing phase it was clear
> that one of the hopes for LUGNET was to bring back to the community people who
> had felt compelled to leave it because of various problems with RTL - be they
> mean-spirited diatribes or the semi-constant flood of commerce-related
> postings.
My being member #15 or member #2015 or not a paying member at all has nothing
to do with it. In fact I try to avoid posting my member # because I find it
elitest and I don't see the value add of doing so. Anyway I know what the
hopes for LUGNET were and still are and I agree with them. That does not make
LUGNET immune from people like Matthew. All that can be done is to deal with
the situation quickly as Todd did and leave it at that. To try and force Todd,
not that that would ever happen, into an action as serious as bannishment is
just wrong in my opinion.
Actually, I am glad that Todd thinks for himself in these issues because if
memory serves there were quite a few people that would have liked to have
bannished Jonathan Wilson a year or two ago but through patience and some
ground rules being set Jonathan is now a valuable member of the community.
>
> So now, especially given that Todd has stated clearly that if it had been
> obvious at the time that Matthew was the same person as the Mad Hatter of 1998
> (9?) RTL infamy, he would have not been allowed in the door, to hear that some
> might express their dissatisfaction by, as you put it "threatening" to leave,
> I'm not surprised, or even bothered.
I am not sure I totally agree with Todd's statement that if he had known
Matthew were the Mad Hatter that he would not have let him in but that is
Todd's choice. I personally like to give 2nd chances as much as possible as
long and it doesn't put someone in danger of physical harm. That being said I
think Matthew was unwittingly given a 2nd chance and he blew it so the end
result is he isn't here.
> In this specific case we had a person
> who had a proven track record of disruptive, rude, antisocial behaviour. Many
> people claimed that such a track record shouldn't come into play ToS-wise, but
> I'm sorry, if it is good enough for Todd, it's good enough for me.
I agree that if its good enough for Todd then thats good enough because its his
ball and he can do with it as he wishes. It doesn't matter what I or anyone
else thinks, Todd is just good to let people to have their say but in the end
I don't think it will change Todd's mind either way unless some compelling
evidence is given.
> This
> person did something that certainly could have led to the sort of full-scale
> slugfest he caused (and he DID cause it - make no mistake - even without his
> posts available it is clear that he drove the flamefest) on RTL. Given all
> that, I'm not surprised that some might choose to leave were he allowed to
> stay - in fact I'd be surprised if some didn't. Talk about cheapening the
> neighborhood.
Well fortunately we won't have to worry about that.
Actually now that an official decision seems to have been made I don't know how
much longer I want to keep discussing it so unless I have a compelling reason
to post to this thread again I am going to try not to because I think it is
time for it to die.
Eric Kingsley
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
> My being member #15 or member #2015 or not a paying member at all has nothing
> to do with it. In fact I try to avoid posting my member # because I find it
> elitest and I don't see the value add of doing so.
I think you may have misunderstood why I mentioned your member number (note I
didn't mention mine). I also don't think your number should necessarily
indicate you have some sort of status or "power" here. I referenced it simply
because I think, in some cases, a fairly high number may indicate you came to
the LUGNET community a little later than some. Nothing wrong with that, but
being here from the beginning does provide a different sort of perspective.
Not always a better perspective, mind you, but certainly a different one.
And I meant all that in the sense that those of us who remember people leaving
RTL because of the actions of others (whatever they might have been) might
have a different take on someone feeling the need to leave if LUGNET were
allowed to become a not-so-friendly place. That's all - no implied elitism,
although I'm mostly in Larry's camp when it comes to elitism not necessarily
being a bad thing, as long as it is merit-based.
> To try and force Todd,
> not that that would ever happen, into an action as serious as bannishment is
> just wrong in my opinion.
To try to force Todd to do anything would be futile, I assure you. :) To try
to influence Todd, though, is not necessarily wrong, imo. Especially if
you're just stating your opinion and perhaps offering your perspective. I
snipped what you wrote about possibly assuming a threatening nature to the
comments about leaving, but I think it is important to note that *Todd* did
not characterize them as threats, so I would not characterize them as attempts
to *force* him to do anything either.
> I am not sure I totally agree with Todd's statement that if he had known
> Matthew were the Mad Hatter that he would not have let him in but that is
> Todd's choice. I personally like to give 2nd chances as much as possible as
I'm sure I totally agree with Todd's statement, but I'm ok with you tending
towards 2nd chances.
> Well fortunately we won't have to worry about that.
Yup. :)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
>
> My being member #15 or member #2015 or not a paying member at all has nothing
> to do with it. In fact I try to avoid posting my member # because I find it
> elitest and I don't see the value add of doing so. Anyway I know what the
G'day Eric,
I find it interesting that you call this elitist. In a way I
guess I can see your point, but I personally don't see it
as a bad thing. When I first got on LUGNET (start of this
year) I thought that all people posting to LUGNET had to be
members. Eventually I found out that wasn't true of course.
But I find it useful in the marketplace groups to indicate
that I am a member of LUGNET in my posts. Because I know
some people just pop in and post things from time to time,
and they aren't a "regular" here. Saying your a member helps
add a little bit of comfort level (for the reader) to a
marketplace post, IMO.
It just sort of stuck and now I post it in all my messages.
I especially use it in off-LUGNET posts/email involving
LEGO (usually marketplace activity).
Wow, #15..., you're *OLD* :]
KDJ
______________________________________
Kyle D. Jackson, LUGNETer #203, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"Kyle D. Jackson" wrote:
>
> Wow, #15..., you're *OLD* :]
>
> KDJ
#15?.. Heh!..:-)
Selçuk, #4
> ______________________________________
> Kyle D. Jackson, LUGNETer #203, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
> There was one other thing that bothered me durring the discussion however
> and that is the fact that it seems some people decided to tell Todd
> privately that if Matthew was not banished that they would leave.
One person said that, but I'm not sure how serious they were. A couple of
other people hinted at it. Two or three people (I think two) said that they
would set up a killfile.
> Because this was done
> privately I can't quote word for word but it all sounds like threats to me
> and we don't need that here.
I don't think they meant it as a threat. I certainly didn't see it that way.
It was preceded by "It's your call, but I also want to say that I would be
likely to pack up and leave if he stays and continues to act this way" (this
is from memory -- not a direct quote -- and paraphrased) and I think it was
intended as something to take into consideration -- something to illustrate
the level of frustration.
> I still feel that some people need to learn how to
> disagree (politely of course). We are not all going to agree all the time
> and trying to force a viewpoint with threats of any kind is not the right
> way to go about it. Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree and be
> done with it.
I agree, and I'm no saint on this point, either. I also like what ScottA
wrote earlier about trying not to say things online that you wouldn't say to
someone in person. (That advice assumes a generally polite personality to
start with, and probably won't work so well with rude dispositions, but I
think most people are generally polite in real life, as long as their mad
buttons aren't pushed. :-)
> Finally I would like to say that I am not in any way sad to see Matthew go.
> I just wanted to try and do my part to ensure that he was banished for the
> right reasons.
I am personally sad that someone has been thrown out who put up space models
that I really enjoyed (especially the weaponry sections). I would still feel
that way even if the commotion had been 10x what it was.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
>
> > The only thing that got me really riled in the whole situation is people's
> > obsession with making his *viewpoints* a reason to ToSs him, which I strongly
> > disagree about.
>
> I agree. However...
>
> I think that there were people who felt that way initially, but that many, if
> not all, have come around to reject that view. And that's a good thing. For
> the few remaining, can you identify yourselves and post reasons why we need to
> judge opinions and not behaviour?
>
> ++Lar
Actually I'm not including myself to that a few remaining, but in case
of any doubt, here is my reasoning, in which I tried to word it as much
clear as possible:
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=8125
If there is any flaws, replies would be really appreciated.
Selçuk
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
>
> > The only thing that got me really riled in the whole situation is people's
> > obsession with making his *viewpoints* a reason to ToSs him, which I strongly
> > disagree about.
>
> I agree. However...
>
> I think that there were people who felt that way initially, but that many, if
> not all, have come around to reject that view. And that's a good thing. For
> the few remaining, can you identify yourselves and post reasons why we need to
> judge opinions and not behaviour?
Wow, what a loaded question, especially given what seems(ed) like a reverse-
witch-hunt.
I'd like to state first that I realized Friday that I got WAY too worked up
about this and posted some things that were, in some cases, petty and
childish, and in almost every case, detrimental to maintaining calm and
civility during this discussion. That's why I sent Todd a request to remove
every single post I had made on this subject.
Now I'm fairly calm about it, well, that's not true, some of the stuff still
angers me, but I can BE calm about it. So I'll respond to this.
I'll not identify myself as someone who thinks we (by we I assume you mean
LUGNET) need to judge opinions and not behaviour, at least not in the way that
I think you mean it. If you mean that WE ought to go around banishing people
from LUGNET for holding unpopular opinions then no, I'm not one of those
people.
If, however, you (or anyone else) are suggesting (and I doubt you are) that
*I* ought not to judge people based on opinions they publicly espouse, then
I'd have to disagree with that. I have as much right to pick and choose who I
like, respond to, etc, based on whatever reason, as any person has to hold any
opinion. Maybe this is a subject for off-topic.debate, but with respect to
opinions, it might be politically incorrect to say so, but they're not created
equal. People who hold unpopular opinions and choose to make an issue of them
(especially in the way these were - sarcastically, arrogantly, and in a mean-
spirited manner) SHOULD expect to be held accountable for them, not
necessarily (as in this specific case) in the sense of the ToS, but by other
people who have as much "right" (not suggesting LUGNET is obligated to provide
anyone a forum) to espouse their opinions as the person with the unpopular
opinion.
I did not then nor am I now saying that Matthew should have been ousted solely
for his opinions. For me, internally, it was the final straw with respect to
how *I* would deal with him, and I'm not ashamed of that. But as many have
pointed out, Todd (and Suz - I suppose) is the only person involved in this
discussion who ultimately got to decide what to do about Matthew, so the fact
that I personally would have chosen to disassociate myself with him had he
stayed here (including pushing for some sort of filtering capability - I think
it has other uses as well) wouldn't have mattered much.
So do I think people ought to be banished because of their opinions? Nope,
not directly. Do I forsee scenarios (like this one) where their opinions and
their actions will be fairly well intertwined, possibly to the point where it
may APPEAR as if they are being ousted because of their opinions? Yup. Do I
think that it just might be possible that someone with the gaul to willfully
spout disrespectful crap about a popular dead guy might just also tend to do
things that ARE ToS-able? Seems to have happened here. Does that suggest a
causal relationship? Dunno - I'm no psychologist.
Now given all that, am I personally glad that Matthew is gone? You bet. Does
at least a decent portion of that personal satisfaction have to do with the
fact that he offended the heck out of me for his opinions? Sure does. Am I
sorry or ashamed for feeling that way? Nope. And nobody else here would be
either - or do so many of you choose to associate with people you don't like
or who have opinions that offend you?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> If, however, you (or anyone else) are suggesting (and I doubt you are) that
> *I* ought not to judge people based on opinions they publicly espouse, then
> I'd have to disagree with that.
So would I. No one ever said you couldn't choose who to like and who not to
like.
> Now given all that, am I personally glad that Matthew is gone? You bet. Does
> at least a decent portion of that personal satisfaction have to do with the
> fact that he offended the heck out of me for his opinions? Sure does. Am I
> sorry or ashamed for feeling that way? Nope. And nobody else here would be
> either -
Actually, if I felt that way, yeah, I would be ashamed of myself.
> or do so many of you choose to associate with people you don't like
> or who have opinions that offend you?
Just because he may have been here on Lugnet doesn't mean you *must* associate
with him. Just because his opinions offended you, you shouldn't want to see
him gone. Lugnet is a big place, and there's plenty of room for all types of
opinions.
Which is not to say that, in the final analysis, I don't think he should have
been ToSsed. I just still don't think his opinions should have any bearing
whatsoever on the question, only his actions.
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> So would I. No one ever said you couldn't choose who to like and who not to
> like.
People seem to be suggesting, though, that one should not choose to voice that
opinion. If person A can voice an opinion that persons B, C, and D find
offensive (and to be honest - persons E, F, and G couldn't care less about)
I'd say B, C, or D have just as much right to discuss it. Yay, even to even
argue about it.
> > Now given all that, am I personally glad that Matthew is gone? You bet. • Does
> > at least a decent portion of that personal satisfaction have to do with the
> > fact that he offended the heck out of me for his opinions? Sure does. Am I
> > sorry or ashamed for feeling that way? Nope. And nobody else here would be
> > either -
>
> Actually, if I felt that way, yeah, I would be ashamed of myself.
Really? You're able to divest yourself so fully from your personal beliefs or
opinions that someone who held one that offended you - pick one - here's an
easy one. If Randolf the Racist believed that only purple people truly
belonged in this country and that all other races should be forcibly tossed
from it, and that belief offended you, made you sick to your stomach even. If
Randolf were then tossed from LUGNET because he broke the rules, you wouldn't
feel a teensy bit of satisfaction that someone who turned your stomach was no
longer around to turn it? If so, I think we need to put your dossier on the
fast track for Sainthood. :)
> > or do so many of you choose to associate with people you don't like
> > or who have opinions that offend you?
>
> Just because he may have been here on Lugnet doesn't mean you *must* associate
> with him. Just because his opinions offended you, you shouldn't want to see
> him gone. Lugnet is a big place, and there's plenty of room for all types of
> opinions.
Yes, there are. And there's room for discussion, possibly even arguments,
about those opinions, especially if they are conducted with the respect of
both parties in mind. I'd say Matthew and I fell a little short of that mark
more than once, although I'd probably try to point out that "he started it",
realizing that two wrongs don't make a right.
> Which is not to say that, in the final analysis, I don't think he should have
> been ToSsed. I just still don't think his opinions should have any bearing
> whatsoever on the question, only his actions.
On the question of ToSing him, I agree. Well, maybe. I'm not prepared to
tell LUGNET's owner what criteria he may use to make his decision, especially
since he has a blanket "I can toss you if I think you need to" clause. But
yes, in the abstract sense, were we to have any real say in who gets ToSed and
who doesn't, I'd say personal opinions shouldn't come into play.
I think I'd just be more willing to notice correlations between opinions and
actions. And what I mean by that is that while you say you're not concerned
about James Jessiman one way or the other, you don't seem to feel a desire to
run around making fun of people who do respect and yes, perhaps revere him.
Matthew seemed to take a petty sort of glee in trying to humiliate people for
respecting James and his contribution to the LCAD community. You may feel it
is just as silly, but you stop short of trying to rudely and arrogantly rub
someone else's nose in it. You have an opinion that differs from mine (that I
can respect) and you respect my right to hold it. He had an opinion that is
different from mine (the right to hold the opinion I can respect) and he
thought it fun to turn that into a weapon of sorts, obviously having no
respect for others' rights to their opinions.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> > So would I. No one ever said you couldn't choose who to like and who not to
> > like.
>
> People seem to be suggesting, though, that one should not choose to voice that
> opinion. If person A can voice an opinion that persons B, C, and D find
> offensive (and to be honest - persons E, F, and G couldn't care less about)
> I'd say B, C, or D have just as much right to discuss it. Yay, even to even
> argue about it.
So would I. Of course, discussing it would imply the person with the negative
opinion was around to discuss it. :D
I'm really not saying that you should be forced to agree in any way with
anything anyone says, or that you should not have the right to argue it with
them (in lugnet.off-topic.debate, or where ever it might be on-topic).
Everyone ha a right to their opinions, and to express themselves (IMHO).
> > > Now given all that, am I personally glad that Matthew is gone? You bet.
> > > Does
> > > at least a decent portion of that personal satisfaction have to do with the
> > > fact that he offended the heck out of me for his opinions? Sure does. Am I
> > > sorry or ashamed for feeling that way? Nope. And nobody else here would be
> > > either -
> >
> > Actually, if I felt that way, yeah, I would be ashamed of myself.
>
> Really? You're able to divest yourself so fully from your personal beliefs or
> opinions that someone who held one that offended you - pick one - here's an
> easy one. If Randolf the Racist believed that only purple people truly
> belonged in this country and that all other races should be forcibly tossed
> from it, and that belief offended you, made you sick to your stomach even. If
> Randolf were then tossed from LUGNET because he broke the rules, you wouldn't
> feel a teensy bit of satisfaction that someone who turned your stomach was no
> longer around to turn it? If so, I think we need to put your dossier on the
> fast track for Sainthood. :)
If Randolph broke the rules, or was disruptive (ie, constatly espoused his
beliefs in an off-topic way), I would be glad he was gone because he was
disruptive. I wouldn't be glad he was gone because he was a racist. I
personally like it when people who hold ignorant beliefs are allowed to express
them, because 9 times out of 10 it shows just how ignorant the beliefs are more
than anything else.
But I don't think that qualifies me for Sainthood. Believe me, anyone who
knows me well could give you about 800 reasons why that dossier would get
stopped in it's tracks. :D
> > > or do so many of you choose to associate with people you don't like
> > > or who have opinions that offend you?
> >
> > Just because he may have been here on Lugnet doesn't mean you *must*
> > associate
> > with him. Just because his opinions offended you, you shouldn't want to see
> > him gone. Lugnet is a big place, and there's plenty of room for all types of
> > opinions.
>
> Yes, there are. And there's room for discussion, possibly even arguments,
> about those opinions, especially if they are conducted with the respect of
> both parties in mind. I'd say Matthew and I fell a little short of that mark
> more than once, although I'd probably try to point out that "he started it",
> realizing that two wrongs don't make a right.
I agree with you, except for the respect part. If conversations are carried
out in accordance with the T&C, respect for the other person isn't necessary.
Respect for the T&C (in spirit as well as letter) is, though.
> > Which is not to say that, in the final analysis, I don't think he should have
> > been ToSsed. I just still don't think his opinions should have any bearing
> > whatsoever on the question, only his actions.
>
> On the question of ToSing him, I agree. Well, maybe. I'm not prepared to
> tell LUGNET's owner what criteria he may use to make his decision, especially
> since he has a blanket "I can toss you if I think you need to" clause.
That kind of clause is always needed in T&C as a butt-covering device. I don't
really think that Todd *would* ToSs someone just for their beliefs. If I did
think that, I wouldn't want to be part of the community, to be honest.
> I think I'd just be more willing to notice correlations between opinions and
> actions. And what I mean by that is that while you say you're not concerned
> about James Jessiman one way or the other, you don't seem to feel a desire to
> run around making fun of people who do respect and yes, perhaps revere him.
There's always room to question that kind of loyalty. I really don't think
Jessiman should be "revered". I'm not as passionate about making people
question it as Matt seemed to be, though.
> Matthew seemed to take a petty sort of glee in trying to humiliate people for
> respecting James and his contribution to the LCAD community. You may feel it
> is just as silly,
Probably for entirely different reasons. For example, as great as LDraw was in
it's time, it's pretty outdated now, and I think that if people didn't "revere"
James so much (ie, if he were still alive) there would probably be a much more
updated version of LDraw, or something even better. But because to make
something better would be to question James, the majority of the community is
still using LDraw.
But frankly, I couldn't care either way. I think LDraw is too much of a pain
to use, but I can't program up anything better, so it's really not my place to
say that.
> but you stop short of trying to rudely and arrogantly rub
> someone else's nose in it. You have an opinion that differs from mine (that I
> can respect) and you respect my right to hold it. He had an opinion that is
> different from mine (the right to hold the opinion I can respect) and he
> thought it fun to turn that into a weapon of sorts, obviously having no
> respect for others' rights to their opinions.
The only difference as I see it s that Matt cared enough about his opinion to
do something about it, and I don't. Which doesn't make Matt a martyr or
anything, I'm not suggesting that... I think he went overboard in other ways.
I think he could have argued about Jessiman all day long in a different way
and I would actually be upset that he's gone.
As it stands, I don't really think that Matt cared about Jessiman either, it
was just a convenient way to jab at the community.
eric
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> As it stands, I don't really think that Matt cared about Jessiman either, it
> was just a convenient way to jab at the community.
Which is a succinct way of saying that he was basically a jerk. :)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> >
> > > The only thing that got me really riled in the whole situation is people's
> > > obsession with making his *viewpoints* a reason to ToSs him, which I • strongly
> > > disagree about.
> >
> > I agree. However...
> >
> > I think that there were people who felt that way initially, but that many, if
> > not all, have come around to reject that view. And that's a good thing. For
> > the few remaining, can you identify yourselves and post reasons why we need • to
> > judge opinions and not behaviour?
>
> Wow, what a loaded question, especially given what seems(ed) like a reverse-
> witch-hunt.
Well it wasn't *intended* as a witch hunt. More of a rhetorical question,
because i'm not sure there *are* any people who still feel that someone should
be tossed soley for opinions.
<snip Mike's eloquent distinction between disliking someone for their opinions
and between using those opinions as the basis for a ToSs>
The snipped part demonstrates that you're not one...
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> I'd like to state first that I realized Friday that I got WAY too worked up
> about this and posted some things that were, in some cases, petty and
> childish, and in almost every case, detrimental to maintaining calm and
> civility during this discussion. That's why I sent Todd a request to remove
> every single post I had made on this subject.
As did I...I think a day or two earlier. I didn't remove all my posts but
two or three that were particularly sour. It's interesting how quickly we
(humans) can blow up, even when we don't want to. That's probably what I
dislike most about myself online.
--Todd
| | | | | | |
