 | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Tim Courtney writes:
>
> I'm a bit unsure on the entire issue of reinstating Matthew after reading
> the posts from both sides over the past 24 hours. But let me take a little
> bit of time to expound on my opinions with his disrespect towards James
> Jessiman and others here;
>
> I am outraged that anyone has the gall to post something to a group like
> this. His image 'James Jessiman is dead...DEAL WITH IT NOW' is the reason I
> got started the other day in the flamewar against Matthew. I also don't
> believe that such an opinion should be advertised on his personal page when
> he intends to use that page to display his work to this commuinty.
>
> Its his right to hold such an opinion, no matter how disgusting it is, no
> one can really say anything about it.
>
> On the contrary, I believe if he truly desires to continue in this community
> he should remove such references on his site, because they are extremely
> offensive and the wound is still there from the other day. I also believe
> the other pages he has put up should be taken down in his spirit of
> repentance - if it is sincere - in an effort to prove himself and to become
> a positive contributor.
>
> Honestly, I was hurt by some of his comments on his site - esp. in the made
> up chat session. I've addressed those issues with him over email, though I
> chose not to address them in the flamefest the other day. However, I feel
> that he has done others a much greater disservice than he has done me - take
> Kyle Keppler and Zlatko Unger for example. He spent far more time ripping
> apart Kyle than he did me for sure. Kyle's also 4 years younger than I am
> (which doesn't mean anything if you don't know that I'm only 18). Both of
> those guys are great and have a lot to offer here, and don't deserve that
> treatment.
>
> So the burden of proof IMO lies with Matthew - if he really does want to
> become a positive contributor and he truly is sorry for his actions, he
> should remove his disgusting drivel from his site. I'm willing to give
> Matthew a chance, provided he proves himself to us.
Sorry Tim but I think you are wrong here. Do I think the graphic on Matthew's
site is distasteful? Yes. Do I care about the other text there? Not really.
We cannot make the content of someone's personal site a prerequisite for
inclusion in the community otherwise we have no community. If you don't like
what is on his site just don't go there anymore, I know I won't.
Matthew has the right to put anything he wants on his site as long as it is
within the TOS of his ISP. We cannot be judge and jury in terms of accepting
him based on the content of his site. I realize that you probably take his
statements about James a bit more personally than most of us do so I am sure
that clouds your judgement a bit.
We should not feel obligated to like everyone in the community. That's just
not a reasonable wish in any community and heck what fun would it be if
everyone agreed with everyone else on every issue.
Now if it is decided to TOS Matthew based on his statements/threats made here
on LUGNET then Todd has that right but that doesn't mean he looses his site or
the ability to read LUGNET or to post to RTL (who would want to do that?). I
have no problem TOSsing Matthew based on Todd's rules in LUGNETs TOS. I have a
big problem however if Matthew was not allowed in the community based on the
content of his site.
Eric Kingsley
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Eric Kingsley" <kingsley@nelug.org> wrote in message
news:G2qtCJ.CHJ@lugnet.com...
> > So the burden of proof IMO lies with Matthew - if he really does want to
> > become a positive contributor and he truly is sorry for his actions, he
> > should remove his disgusting drivel from his site. I'm willing to give
> > Matthew a chance, provided he proves himself to us.
>
> Sorry Tim but I think you are wrong here. Do I think the graphic on • Matthew's
> site is distasteful? Yes. Do I care about the other text there? Not • really.
>
> We cannot make the content of someone's personal site a prerequisite for
> inclusion in the community otherwise we have no community. If you don't • like
> what is on his site just don't go there anymore, I know I won't.
I should correct myself - not *should* in the sense of a clearcut condition,
but as a willful action to demonstrate to the community that he means what
he has said here.
> Matthew has the right to put anything he wants on his site as long as it • is
> within the TOS of his ISP. We cannot be judge and jury in terms of • accepting
> him based on the content of his site. I realize that you probably take • his
> statements about James a bit more personally than most of us do so I am • sure
> that clouds your judgement a bit.
On the contrary, I don't believe my judgement is clouded by his disrespect
towards James. I have my own opinions on the legacy of James Jessiman, and
though he and his work is dear to my heart, as well as his family, I can
separate myself and look at the attitude portrayed rather than just an
attack on something I've devoted a lot of time to.
I was put off originally by his JJ graphic and still am, but I am not
looking on this as a single-sided issue either. Its terribly disrespectful
and unfortunate to everyone.
I'm merely saying that the attitudes on Lugnet that he currently holds
should be consistent with his site, and we can use that as a meter to see
his true condition.
> We should not feel obligated to like everyone in the community. That's • just
> not a reasonable wish in any community and heck what fun would it be if
> everyone agreed with everyone else on every issue.
Yup, I agree. And yes, there are people here in Lugnet who I do not like.
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Tim Courtney writes:
> "Eric Kingsley" <kingsley@nelug.org> wrote in message • <snip?
> > Matthew has the right to put anything he wants on his site as long as it
> > is within the TOS of his ISP. We cannot be judge and jury in terms of
> > accepting him based on the content of his site. I realize that you probably
> > take his statements about James a bit more personally than most of us do so I
> > am sure that clouds your judgement a bit.
First I should appoligize because "Clouds" was not the right word. What I was
trying to say is that I think you feel a closer connection with James and his
legacy than many of us do. That makes what Matthew did more personal to you I
think. I might be wrong but thats what I think. Like I said I think it is
disgusting myself but I probably didn't take it as personally as you and others
may have.
>
> On the contrary, I don't believe my judgement is clouded by his disrespect
> towards James. I have my own opinions on the legacy of James Jessiman, and
> though he and his work is dear to my heart, as well as his family, I can
> separate myself and look at the attitude portrayed rather than just an
> attack on something I've devoted a lot of time to.
>
> I was put off originally by his JJ graphic and still am, but I am not
> looking on this as a single-sided issue either. Its terribly disrespectful
> and unfortunate to everyone.
Sure it is but just realize there are probably members of this community who
don't even know who James is and what his contribution was. I am sure there
are plenty of FOLs out there who have never used LDraw and probably have no
desire to. The graphic to these people probably didn't strike as raw a nerve
as it did in some of the rest of us (Although I hope people found it
inappropriate none the less).
>
> I'm merely saying that the attitudes on Lugnet that he currently holds
> should be consistent with his site, and we can use that as a meter to see
> his true condition.
Well we can just disagree on that I guess. I think as long as he carries
himself properly on LUGNET and follows LUGNET's TOS then I could care less what
he has on his site.
Eric Kingsley
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Eric Kingsley wrote:
<snip>
>
> > I'm merely saying that the attitudes on Lugnet that he currently holds
> > should be consistent with his site, and we can use that as a meter to see
> > his true condition.
>
> Well we can just disagree on that I guess. I think as long as he carries
> himself properly on LUGNET and follows LUGNET's TOS then I could care less what
> he has on his site.
>
> Eric Kingsley
I will be agreeing you on this for a different case but not this. We are
not trying to rationalize to TOS him because of his web content. It's
just his web content is another evidence for making his (in my mind)
suspicious apologies more suspicious than ever.
Selçuk
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Selçuk Göre skrev i meddelandet <39F0D9E8.9A73C9F@superonline.com>...
>
> Eric Kingsley wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > > I'm merely saying that the attitudes on Lugnet that he currently holds
> > > should be consistent with his site, and we can use that as a meter to see
> > > his true condition.
> >
> > Well we can just disagree on that I guess. I think as long as he carries
> > himself properly on LUGNET and follows LUGNET's TOS then I could care less • what
> > he has on his site.
> >
> > Eric Kingsley
>
> I will be agreeing you on this for a different case but not this. We are
> not trying to rationalize to TOS him because of his web content. It's
> just his web content is another evidence for making his (in my mind)
> suspicious apologies more suspicious than ever.
I don't think 'suspicions' are enough to judge anyone. 'Evidence' is what's
used for that. The evidence in this case are the messages posted on lugnet,
nothing else. A web site, paper on the wall, speech on the radio, etc. etc.
has nothing to do with the lugnet ToS, and cannot IMO be used as an argument
for excluding anyone.
As for the sincerity of his apologies, who are we to judge on suspicions? Only
his actions on lugnet can tell...
If you asked me how to proceed, I would say: Let him in again, and throw him
out for good if the ToS are violated again.
--
Anders Isaksson, Sweden
BlockCAD: http://user.tninet.se/~hbh828t/proglego.htm
Gallery: http://user.tninet.se/~hbh828t/gallery.htm
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Anders Isaksson wrote:
>
> Selçuk Göre skrev i meddelandet <39F0D9E8.9A73C9F@superonline.com>...
> >
> > Eric Kingsley wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > > I'm merely saying that the attitudes on Lugnet that he currently holds
> > > > should be consistent with his site, and we can use that as a meter to see
> > > > his true condition.
> > >
> > > Well we can just disagree on that I guess. I think as long as he carries
> > > himself properly on LUGNET and follows LUGNET's TOS then I could care less • what
> > > he has on his site.
> > >
> > > Eric Kingsley
> >
> > I will be agreeing you on this for a different case but not this. We are
> > not trying to rationalize to TOS him because of his web content. It's
> > just his web content is another evidence for making his (in my mind)
> > suspicious apologies more suspicious than ever.
Friends, I know I'm not very fluent in this language which is native to
me, so I rewording it again:
He started a flame war. He did that knowingly, and he even chose the
person to flame by rather randomly, since he did that just for the sake
of starting a flame war, not for the purpose of flaming a given
individual. He also knew that what he would get as a response, and
actually all his purpose was getting this response. Why? Because he had
a revenge in his head (for an event that took place at least a year
ago), he already had some thoughts about the "community" as he published
at his web site, and he thought that he should better had a live
evidence for his point.
The above is not conspiracy. All of the above from HIS OWN WORDS, from
the messages that HE POSTED HERE IN LUGNET, which are EVIDENCE, as you
already said. If you don't believe me, you should reread his postings.
He even dare enough to say that all this fabricated revenge was to help
us, when trying to rationalize his actions.
And this fabricated revenge thing is why he had been banned I believe,
from Todd's postings. Yes, he already banned. So I have nothing to do
with banning him again.
POINT: I believe no one here could be punished because of anything out
of Lugnet that related to him/her. Do you remember Huw? I was with him.
Do you remember Remy? I was with him. I already believe that, and I
already proved my belief with my past actions.
So, why I still continue to talk about his web content? Because:
His web content is just the proud publication of his fabricated revenge.
In his apologies, he mentioned that it was a wrong thing to do. So why
is the content is still there if he wanted us to believe that he
admitted to himself that he was wrong? I think this is an EVIDENCE.
Besides, I believe that I have right to have my own suspicions about
anything, and have right to express them wherever I find
appropriate.
So, as I already explained that I don't have anything to the with
banning him again, what is my purpose on doing this? I just don't want
him to be allowed here AGAIN, and I'm trying to made myself clear about
the reasoning behind my choice (and yes, it is a choice, just personal
choice). All the EVIDENCE made believing that we are dealing with a
flawed personality, and since this not a therapy club, I don't want some
sick personality lurking around me. That's it.
Regards,
Selçuk
> I don't think 'suspicions' are enough to judge anyone. 'Evidence' is what's
> used for that. The evidence in this case are the messages posted on lugnet,
> nothing else. A web site, paper on the wall, speech on the radio, etc. etc.
> has nothing to do with the lugnet ToS, and cannot IMO be used as an argument
> for excluding anyone.
>
> As for the sincerity of his apologies, who are we to judge on suspicions? Only
> his actions on lugnet can tell...
>
> If you asked me how to proceed, I would say: Let him in again, and throw him
> out for good if the ToS are violated again.
> --
> Anders Isaksson, Sweden
> BlockCAD: http://user.tninet.se/~hbh828t/proglego.htm
> Gallery: http://user.tninet.se/~hbh828t/gallery.htm
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 23:54:26 GMT, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sel=E7uk=20G=F6re?=
<ssgore@superonline.com> wrote:
> Friends, I know I'm not very fluent in this language which is native to
> me, so I rewording it again:
> He started a flame war.
So the ENTIRE flame war was all me, huh? No one else participated at
all? No one else helped add fuel to the fodder? That's kinda funny
cause that's not exactly how I remember it.
> He did that knowingly, and he even chose the
> person to flame by rather randomly, since he did that just for the sake
> of starting a flame war, not for the purpose of flaming a given
> individual. He also knew that what he would get as a response, and
> actually all his purpose was getting this response. Why? Because he had
> a revenge in his head (for an event that took place at least a year
> ago), he already had some thoughts about the "community" as he published
> at his web site, and he thought that he should better had a live
> evidence for his point.
Hey look, a conspiracy theory. Oh hey, here's a thought, when did I
say I did it on purpose to try and prove a point? Was
it....uh....before I got really ticked off....or after?
> The above is not conspiracy. All of the above from HIS OWN WORDS, from
> the messages that HE POSTED HERE IN LUGNET, which are EVIDENCE, as you
> already said. If you don't believe me, you should reread his postings.
> He even dare enough to say that all this fabricated revenge was to help
> us, when trying to rationalize his actions.
Again did I say this BEFORE or AFTER all THIS:
I was called rude, little, egotistical, childish, insulting, clueless,
a troll, immature, unintelligent, sarcastic, a jerk, and inarticulate.
I was then accused of not having any friends, of having a rotten
attitude, of needing counseling, of having psychological issues,
making noise, having a one-dimensional warped perception of reality,
and of not having a life. I was also told that my opinions didn't
count, that all I had to contribute was drivel, that no one cared
about my thoughts or ideas, that I should be completely banned from
Lugnet, ousted, alienated at any opportunity, told to shut up, that I
wasn't welcome, that I should be shunned, banished, and that my
parents might be alcoholics, etc, etc.
At that point what I wanted most was a way of getting back at
everyone, to try and show everyone up one.
> And this fabricated revenge thing is why he had been banned I believe,
> from Todd's postings. Yes, he already banned. So I have nothing to do
> with banning him again.
Actually (according to Todd) I was banned because there were a bunch
of people who were outraged at my views and opinions and they e-mailed
him emotionally charged letters calling for my banishment. (correct
me if that's not accurate).
> POINT: I believe no one here could be punished because of anything out
> of Lugnet that related to him/her. Do you remember Huw? I was with him.
> Do you remember Remy? I was with him. I already believe that, and I
> already proved my belief with my past actions.
>
> So, why I still continue to talk about his web content? Because:
>
> His web content is just the proud publication of his fabricated revenge.
> In his apologies, he mentioned that it was a wrong thing to do. So why
> is the content is still there if he wanted us to believe that he
> admitted to himself that he was wrong? I think this is an EVIDENCE.
> Besides, I believe that I have right to have my own suspicions about
> anything, and have right to express them wherever I find
> appropriate.
I think there is some confusion. I apologized to JUDE, because that's
what I did wrong. I made a mean personal remark about a website,
that's it. Well that and I should have been posting everything after
to the off topic group. The content that you speak of on my webpage
was there BEFORE I did anything here. The one section about a simple
point is just something really ironic that I thought some people would
find interesting. Actually though I'm going to take it down and
instead recreate all the posts and threads about all this on there.
That way people can read the situation as it occurred and decide for
themselves what they think. As far as my conspiring, well, not
really. In all actuality that was just something I came up with after
Todd started posting and I got really upset. It seemed like a good
way of either "getting back at everyone" or avoiding looking like I
did something bad.
-Matthew
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Moulton writes:
> Actually (according to Todd) I was banned because there were a bunch
> of people who were outraged at my views and opinions and they e-mailed
> him emotionally charged letters calling for my banishment. (correct
> me if that's not accurate).
Not accurate, no. Beside the point, nobody who wrote me was upset by
your views -- only by your attitude and immature behavior level .space and
.off-topic.debate.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Matthew wrote:
>
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 23:54:26 GMT, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sel=E7uk=20G=F6re?=
> <ssgore@superonline.com> wrote:
>
> > Friends, I know I'm not very fluent in this language which is native to
> > me, so I rewording it again:
>
> > He started a flame war. He did that knowingly, and he even chose the
> > person to flame by rather randomly, since he did that just for the sake
> > of starting a flame war, not for the purpose of flaming a given
> > individual. He also knew that what he would get as a response, and
> > actually all his purpose was getting this response. Why? Because he had
> > a revenge in his head (for an event that took place at least a year
> > ago), he already had some thoughts about the "community" as he published
> > at his web site, and he thought that he should better had a live
> > evidence for his point.
>
> So the ENTIRE flame war was all me, huh? No one else participated at
> all? No one else helped add fuel to the fodder? That's kinda funny
> cause that's not exactly how I remember it.
I don't mean even a bit by the above paragraph it was all you, and the
flame war is not a big thing to me as alone. The paragraph is just a
chronology, so I put it back to it's original form.
> Hey look, a conspiracy theory. Oh hey, here's a thought, when did I
> say I did it on purpose to try and prove a point? Was
> it....uh....before I got really ticked off....or after?
Read below. Besides, bet I care even a bit exactly when you did say it.
> > The above is not conspiracy. All of the above from HIS OWN WORDS, from
> > the messages that HE POSTED HERE IN LUGNET, which are EVIDENCE, as you
> > already said. If you don't believe me, you should reread his postings.
> > He even dare enough to say that all this fabricated revenge was to help
> > us, when trying to rationalize his actions.
>
> Again did I say this BEFORE or AFTER all THIS:
Is this made you less sick? And what are you trying to say? "Don't judge
me for the things that I said here in Lugnet" Baaahhhh, me says. Your
excuse even more than your actions before.
> I was called rude, ........
<snipped because it had already been copied and pasted more than twice>
> At that point what I wanted most was a way of getting back at
> everyone, to try and show everyone up one.
In case if it is true, is there any evidence from you that you will
never want to "get back at everyone" and "show everyone up one"?
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
> > And this fabricated revenge thing is why he had been banned I believe,
> > from Todd's postings. Yes, he already banned. So I have nothing to do
> > with banning him again.
>
> Actually (according to Todd) I was banned because there were a bunch
> of people who were outraged at my views and opinions and they e-mailed
> him emotionally charged letters calling for my banishment. (correct
> me if that's not accurate).
You are not accurate. Go read
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=7992. I'm sure you already know
what "threshold breaker" means, so please go read your "threshold
breakers", too.
> > POINT: I believe no one here could be punished because of anything out
> > of Lugnet that related to him/her. Do you remember Huw? I was with him.
> > Do you remember Remy? I was with him. I already believe that, and I
> > already proved my belief with my past actions.
> >
> > So, why I still continue to talk about his web content? Because:
> >
> > His web content is just the proud publication of his fabricated revenge.
> > In his apologies, he mentioned that it was a wrong thing to do. So why
> > is the content is still there if he wanted us to believe that he
> > admitted to himself that he was wrong? I think this is an EVIDENCE.
> > Besides, I believe that I have right to have my own suspicions about
> > anything, and have right to express them wherever I find
> > appropriate.
>
> I think there is some confusion. I apologized to JUDE, because that's
> what I did wrong. I made a mean personal remark about a website,
> that's it. Well that and I should have been posting everything after
> to the off topic group. The content that you speak of on my webpage
> was there BEFORE I did anything here. The one section about a simple
> point is just something really ironic that I thought some people would
> find interesting. Actually though I'm going to take it down and
> instead recreate all the posts and threads about all this on there.
> That way people can read the situation as it occurred and decide for
> themselves what they think. As far as my conspiring, well, not
> really. In all actuality that was just something I came up with after
> Todd started posting and I got really upset. It seemed like a good
> way of either "getting back at everyone" or avoiding looking like I
> did something bad.
>
> -Matthew
I exactly mean the second document
http://my.ispchannel.com/~mmoulton/lego/mypoint.html
It was not there, and cannot be there too, since it is physically
impossible. And, as you just reminded me, if this is not a planned
revenge as you said WHY IS STILL THERE, me asks.
Selçuk
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
> Now if it is decided to TOS Matthew based on his statements/threats made here
> on LUGNET then Todd has that right but that doesn't mean he looses his site or
> the ability to read LUGNET or to post to RTL (who would want to do that?). I
> have no problem TOSsing Matthew based on Todd's rules in LUGNETs TOS. I have
> a big problem however if Matthew was not allowed in the community based on the
> content of his site.
In general, I agree with you. However, Matthew used his website (in my
opinion) as a tool to damage and disrupt the community. He crafted lies and
misdirections, then posted something designed to stand out and direct traffic
at his site. I don't believe his apology is sincere. He has said he will
tone down the commentary on his web page to accurately reflect his opinion,
but has not done so. He has claimed (sorry, don't recall exactly which post)
that he's got other things he has to do before changing the things on his
webpage, but that's a hollow excuse. He *HAS* updated his webpage, at least
once - there's new content there - but hasn't taken down or changed any of the
things he's claiming to apologize for.
I don't think Matthew should be banned for his opinions.
I don't think Matthew should be banned for whatever he feels like putting on
his webpage.
I don't think Matthew should be banned for his actual posts on Lugnet (there's
been worse offenders, IMHO).
I *do* think Matthew should be banned for his deliberate and malicious attack
on the Lego community, which he admitted to himself.
Like I said somewhere else, this probably makes me look like a jerk, but oh
well.
James
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, James Brown writes:
<snip>
>
> I don't think Matthew should be banned for his opinions.
Agreed.
>
> I don't think Matthew should be banned for whatever he feels like putting on
> his webpage.
Agreed.
>
> I don't think Matthew should be banned for his actual posts on Lugnet (there's
> been worse offenders, IMHO).
Definitely Agree.
>
> I *do* think Matthew should be banned for his deliberate and malicious attack
> on the Lego community, which he admitted to himself.
If it was posted here I would agree but I don't think it was. It may have been
posted on his site or sent to Todd and then he admitted to it here but I don't
think he made the attack on LUGNET. He has admitted to starting an RTL flame
war 3 years ago, thats a long time and even if he admits it, he *may* have
outgrown it. Now I think he did directly threaten Todd and/or LUGNET but not
in a post so I don't know if the LUGNET TOS applies, thats up to Todd to
determine.
So all in all I don't think I agree with you here although that depends how
things are interpreted.
>
> Like I said somewhere else, this probably makes me look like a jerk, but oh
> well.
Doesn't make you look like a jerk to me. I am sure more people think Eric J.
and myself are jerks then people think you are a jerk. When you weed out some
unfortunate posts in this thread I think all in all it has been a good debate
and it will be interesting to see what the final outcome is. Either way I
won't be devistated because of it.
Eric Kingsley
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
> Doesn't make you look like a jerk to me. I am sure more people think Eric J.
> and myself are jerks then people think you are a jerk.
For what it's worth (not much) I'd wager I got you both beat on that issue. ;)
> When you weed out some
> unfortunate posts in this thread I think all in all it has been a good debate
> and it will be interesting to see what the final outcome is. Either way I
I've requested that all of my posts (well, not counting this one, I guess) on
this topic be removed. I didn't add anything productive to this discussion,
and I apologize for the ill will my posts might have caused.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, James Brown writes:
> > I *do* think Matthew should be banned for his deliberate and malicious attack
> > on the Lego community, which he admitted to himself.
>
> If it was posted here I would agree but I don't think it was. It may have
> been posted on his site or sent to Todd and then he admitted to it here but I
> don't think he made the attack on LUGNET. He has admitted to starting an RTL
> flame war 3 years ago, thats a long time and even if he admits it, he *may*
> have outgrown it. Now I think he did directly threaten Todd and/or LUGNET
> but not in a post so I don't know if the LUGNET TOS applies, thats up to
> Todd to determine.
I can't recall where exactly he said it (in a couple places, I think), but
Matthew admitted in a post on Lugnet that he faked the content on his website
and made the inflamatory remarks that he did specifically to damage the Lego
community. IMO, that's where he crossed the line. (my personal line - I don't
know about other people, or where exactly he crossed the line WRT Lugnet ToS)
If that sort of activity *isn't* ToSable, it should be.
(checking... it is)
<excerpt from: http://www.lugnet.com/admin/terms/agreement >
Although we hope that everyone can play well together, we must reserve the
right to allow or to refuse access to this site to anyone, for any reason,
with or without prior warning or explanation.
There ya go. Black and white acknowledgement of the right of refusal, with
implication (as I read it, anyway) that it may be used for people who
don't "play well"
James
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, James Brown writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, James Brown writes:
> > > I *do* think Matthew should be banned for his deliberate and malicious
> > > attack on the Lego community, which he admitted to himself.
> >
> > If it was posted here I would agree but I don't think it was. It may have
> > been posted on his site or sent to Todd and then he admitted to it here but I
> > don't think he made the attack on LUGNET. He has admitted to starting an RTL
> > flame war 3 years ago, thats a long time and even if he admits it, he *may*
> > have outgrown it. Now I think he did directly threaten Todd and/or LUGNET
> > but not in a post so I don't know if the LUGNET TOS applies, thats up to
> > Todd to determine.
>
> I can't recall where exactly he said it (in a couple places, I think), but
> Matthew admitted in a post on Lugnet that he faked the content on his website
> and made the inflamatory remarks that he did specifically to damage the Lego
> community. IMO, that's where he crossed the line. (my personal line - I don't
> know about other people, or where exactly he crossed the line WRT Lugnet ToS)
Well that definitely wasn't nice if thats how it happened. *But* how much
damage do you think he could have done to us from his site? From a technical
standpoint his site is nice but not something that is going to generate a ton
of hits on its own so I don't think it is much to worry about. Besides I don't
know how anyone useing a clear head and judgement could find the LEGO community
malicious anyway no matter how much he tried to portray it that way.
>
> If that sort of activity *isn't* ToSable, it should be.
>
> (checking... it is)
> <excerpt from: http://www.lugnet.com/admin/terms/agreement >
> Although we hope that everyone can play well together, we must reserve the
> right to allow or to refuse access to this site to anyone, for any reason,
> with or without prior warning or explanation.
>
> There ya go. Black and white acknowledgement of the right of refusal, with
> implication (as I read it, anyway) that it may be used for people who
> don't "play well"
Actually that makes just about anything TOS'able. Just from that one part of
the TOS Todd could "refuse access" to anyone he wanted for any reason he
wanted. So yes Todd would be well within his rights to TOS Matthew and like I
said I don't really care one way or another but it would set a precedent seeing
I don't think anyone has been TOS'ed from 100% of LUGNET in its history and if
they have it hasn't held with time. I know some people have been TOS'ed
temporarily from sections of LUGNET but that is all.
No 100% ban should be taken lightly (and I don't think it is thats why Todd
opened .admin.general back up to Matthew). I just think any 100% ban on anyone
could eventually look very bad for LUGNET and Todd may have to justify the ban
for some time to come.
Eric Kingsley
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
> If it was posted here I would agree but I don't think it was. It may have • been
> posted on his site or sent to Todd and then he admitted to it here but I don't
> think he made the attack on LUGNET. He has admitted to starting an RTL flame
> war 3 years ago, thats a long time and even if he admits it, he *may* have
> outgrown it.
It was actually only one year ago. He remembered it wrong.
| | | | | | |
