| |
In lugnet.general, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Mark Jordan wrote: • I'd prefer to
> > see a black and white list of offensive words which aren't acceptable on Lugnet.
> > That way people can easily avoid these ugly situations.
>
> By what standard do you create this list?
This is exactly why Lugnet has not published a list of no-no words. But really,
is there anyone here who doesn't know that f**k is a bad word? I think the only
two words that would get you an email from an admin are f**k and s**t.
Otherwise, it is all about the spirit of the post. If you are intending to
flame someone, intentially insult them, or are otherwise being a fool, then you
might get an email/suspension. Lugnet has been infected by people who are
unable to police themselves, and who need some sort of reminder that there are
rules, and that they need to be respected.
What continually amazes me is how Lugnet has people accusing it of being
'Orwellian', 'draconian' and the like. Yet on Classic-Castle, 1000Steine.de,
CSF and other places - if you curse, you don't necessarily get an email, you
don't necessarily get a warning - you post is editted by an admin directly,
whether you like it or not. Lugnet has always given the choice to you.
Cursing or somehow else make an inappropriate post? Lugnet will email you, ask
you to cancel your post. If you refuse, you will be suspended for a few days -
but the post will remain. If you refuse to acknowledge that the ToS applies to
you (a la Marchetti), then you will be suspended until you acknowledge it. How
exactly is this draconian? Is it because it isn't done in public, where someone
could be publically humiliated?
I'm frustrated, because if Lugnet changes policy, it won't be to one where
anyone can post whatever they want. That has failed, feel free to browse any of
the various flame wars from the past year to see why we think so. If policy
changes, it will be towards forced editting of posts, forced deletion of posts -
to a system just like those in place at Eurobricks, FBTB, Classic-Castle,
1000steine, Classic-Space Forums, etc etc etc.
-Lenny
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Perhaps some folks would rather be explicitely controlled than to be scolded. I think it is partially a psychological expression. One the one hand "we don't put up with this here and we do whatever is necessary *immediately* to modify (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Well, I'm pretty sure LUGNET isn't draconian; at least, I'm fairly certain that admins aren't running around lopping lugnetter fingers off for violating the ToS. However, I'd definitely describe the system (as put forth by Lar in his email to (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| In lugnet.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote: **SNIP of some good stuff illustrating why it's kind** **of silly to decry LUGNET as an "Orwellian" entity** (...) Just a minor point--I don't believe that Richard ever publicly declared a belief that the (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general, FTX)
| | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) You missed the point of my post Lenny. I contend that not everyone thinks that the word you mentioned above is "bad" in every context. There shouldn't be a silver bullet policy that put you into "bad" territory just for writing a word. In (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
29 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
