 | | | | | | |
| |
|
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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
> 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.
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
incorrect behaviour" vs "we point it out to you, twist your arm a bit, and try
to get you to see the light and do it our way". I have no opinion about which is
better or worse, just that some folks will react more positively to one and some
to the other approach. It may be a D'ed if you do and D'ed if you don't kind of
situation.
> 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.
If you end up doing that, please provide a back link to a copy of the original
unmodified post. My thought here is that it would provide a modicum of
free-speech while allowing the more visible post to conform to the standards-of
decency that are being dissiminated by the admins.
Ray
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
> 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.
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
the original poster) as Orwellian. (Note that while I find the posting of the
contents of Lar's email abhorrent, I was intrigued enough about the topic to
read what he had to say...trust me, I know I constantly fail to live up to the
standards I set for myself.)
It's Orwellian for the simple fact that while perhaps technically not a censor
(and despite protests from Oceania, er, the admins declaring it not to be) the
system produces results that are the same as censoring.
Now, I don't have a problem with admins moderating posts. And I suspect most
other people don't either, which is why there isn't a great hue and cry from the
other AFOL-related sites that you cite; people know going into it that the
forums are moderated.
I think the whole issue here at LUGNET simply boils down to a small number of
people who feel the need to push any limits (and buttons) they possibly can, as
well as a group of people who are just too dumb to know any better. However, I
refuse to speculate as to the exact number and identities of people in each of
the above groups.
Derek
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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**
| |
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.
|
Just a minor point--I don’t believe that Richard ever publicly declared a belief
that the TOS shouldn’t apply to him. In fact, in
this post, he explicitly
acknowledges Todd’s right to ban him, and Richard goes out of his way to affirm
that he bears no Todd ill will, stating further that none of the admins had
mistreated him either.
Richard’s complaint, I believe, wasn’t that the TOS shouldn’t apply to him but
rather that the TOS was by its very nature an inefficient policing instrument
that is, at times, seemingly unevenly applied.
Regardless of one’s opinion of Richard, it would be incorrect to accuse him of
demanding special treatment for himself.
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
> 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?
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 other words the standard should not be "everything you write will be taken in
context except when you use this list of words in which case we will apply this
zero tolerence policy" and should be "we take everything in context regardless
of what words were used." It's been proven that so called "zero-tolerence"
policies do more harm than good (have at look here: http://zerointelligence.net
).
-Orion
| | | | | | |
