| |
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, 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.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
