Subject:
|
Re: My Stance
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:35:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3936 times
|
| |
|
|
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.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: My Stance
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes: <snip> (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: My Stance
|
| (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
122 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
