| |
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:
> 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
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
