Subject:
|
Re: My Stance
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:25:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4060 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: My Stance
|
| (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: My Stance
|
| (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: My Stance
|
| (...) And/or perhaps in some cases overstated. Or overly stressed. (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
