 | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, David Koudys wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Chris Magno wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > HEY (ADMIN), I "double dare" you to cancle EVERY POST I have ever written since
> > day one.
> >
> > then what dave? sure 90% of my stuff goes away, but what about the 10% of
> > USEFUL stuff that was actually good.
> >
> > Prove to me that the "system" has checks and balances to prevent that abuse.
> >
> > my point. IT DOSEN'T
> >
> > ----------------end example------------
> >
> >
> > I hope today is slow casue I want to do this all day!
> >
> > :)
> >
> > Chris
>
> And whereas I agree that the potential is there, I do not usually fall for the
> 'slippery slope' situation--if we're having a good time in o.t.foo and someone
> locks out your account in the spirit of 'good fun' (and it really really was
> 'cause I laughed, therefore, as the colour issue people state, if I believe it,
> everyone must believe it and therefore it must be true and indisputable!!) then
> the 'checks and balances' of the system do not apply. FOr example, if you were
> in rtlT and you 'double dared' an admin to do it, even if Janey sent the admin a
> pic of her cleavage (whether she did or didn't last time, I'll not presume ;) )
> it wouldn't have happened.
>
> Much like the Fight Club--what happens in the Fight Club, stays in teh Fight
> Club--you broke rule number 1!
>
> Dave K
Dave are you ready for this.....
I just was sent an e-mail warning me that this VERY discussion we are haveing
~COULD~ get me banned!
NOW to be fair. this person was NOT an admin (rather someone in the know) but
I have no reason to disbelive this person. For obvious reasons I wont e-mail
and "tell."
So dave. splain me THAT!
I will re-reply to your mesage again.
BUT I thought I'd put this out as an FYI.
Chris
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
>
> I just was sent an e-mail warning me that this VERY discussion we are haveing
> ~COULD~ get me banned!
>
> Chris
I don't think they'd really do that...
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> >
> > I just was sent an e-mail warning me that this VERY discussion we are haveing
> > ~COULD~ get me banned!
> >
> > Chris
>
> I don't think they'd really do that...
oh really?
HOW many people so FAR have been given a time out?
~I~ dont know.
other than the people involved and the "banisher" anyone keeping score?
SO FAR, all i have is a line or two from admins SAYING they have "handed out WAY
too many"
and ME!
DAMN! work calls. stay tuned cause I have a belly full for dave!
Chris
-timed out- no due process
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Chris Magno wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> > >
> > > I just was sent an e-mail warning me that this VERY discussion we are haveing
> > > ~COULD~ get me banned!
> > >
> > > Chris
> >
> > I don't think they'd really do that...
>
>
> oh really?
>
> HOW many people so FAR have been given a time out?
>
> ~I~ dont know.
>
> other than the people involved and the "banisher" anyone keeping score?
>
> SO FAR, all i have is a line or two from admins SAYING they have "handed out WAY
> too many"
>
> and ME!
>
>
> DAMN! work calls. stay tuned cause I have a belly full for dave!
>
> Chris
> -timed out- no due process
Great Googley Moogley!!!
Hey Chris! I have an Idea--why don't you go join Ken and Richard 'Ben' who also
have inordinately large chips on their shoulders and you guys can form a club
for those people who are pissed about the inconsequential happenings here at
LUGNET!
(or have I gone too far on that one...)
Dave K
-laying the smack down since '67
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, David Koudys wrote:
<snip>
>
> Dave K
> -laying the smack down since '67
Oh look! I can still post!
For crying out loud! It was off-topic.foo!!!!!
If you want to get your knickers in a knot over something, try guys who spill
ice tea on people's laps at restaurants!!
Waittaminit...
I'm still pretty sorry about that one, btw...
Dave K
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
David Koudys wrote:
> > Dave K
> > -laying the smack down since '67
>
>
> Oh look! I can still post!
At the ever increasing rate I see the 7 words get used around here
(Lugnet in general, rtlT has been clean) I'm surprised to hear that
anyone has gotten banned.
If something that obvious doesn't get you a time out I don't know what
does. Well other then Chris' plight.
Derek
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Derek Raycraft wrote:
> At the ever increasing rate I see the 7 words get used around here
> (Lugnet in general, rtlT has been clean)
It depends on which 7 words you mean. I have seen a number of words used here in
rtlT that I personally do think are inappropriate.
> I'm surprised to hear that
> anyone has gotten banned.
It is not the current policy to comment on who has or hasn't been given a
timeout (a timeout is different than being banned, I note) so if you have
concluded that no one has gotten any timeouts, you may not necessarily be
correct. But it has been noticed and action is being taken.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Derek Raycraft wrote:
>
>
> > At the ever increasing rate I see the 7 words get used around here
> > (Lugnet in general, rtlT has been clean) • >
> It depends on which 7 words you mean. I have seen a number of words used here in
> rtlT that I personally do think are inappropriate.
Type "7 words" into google and hit I'm Feeling Lucky.
Google knows what I'm talking about. Google knows all.
> It is not the current policy to comment on who has or hasn't been given a
> timeout (a timeout is different than being banned, I note) so if you have
> concluded that no one has gotten any timeouts, you may not necessarily be
> correct. But it has been noticed and action is being taken.
This seems to lead to:
-people like me feeling nothing is being done
-people like Chris feeling they are being abused
-people not understanding what is appropriate
-more people quietly being timed out because they post by example.
Derek
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Derek Raycraft wrote:
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Derek Raycraft wrote:
> >
> >
> > > At the ever increasing rate I see the 7 words get used around here
> > > (Lugnet in general, rtlT has been clean)
> >
> > It depends on which 7 words you mean. I have seen a number of words used here in
> > rtlT that I personally do think are inappropriate.
>
>
> Type "7 words" into google and hit I'm Feeling Lucky.
>
> Google knows what I'm talking about. Google knows all.
I know which ones you mean too. But I'll say that I personally don't like the
milder ones either, I think they show lack of imagination. I am in the minority
on the Admin team, so A-- gets a pass and B---- seems to fit the sitch, and S---
gets used more than a bit, and P--- ... well I ran out of rhymes. But I'd prefer
that none of those got used either.
> > It is not the current policy to comment on who has or hasn't been given a
> > timeout (a timeout is different than being banned, I note) so if you have
> > concluded that no one has gotten any timeouts, you may not necessarily be
> > correct. But it has been noticed and action is being taken.
>
> This seems to lead to:
> -people like me feeling nothing is being done
> -people like Chris feeling they are being abused
> -people not understanding what is appropriate
> -more people quietly being timed out because they post by example.
All valid concerns. There is internal discussion about changing the policy and
there is a sub thread in admin.general discussing it. If you have an opinion,
comment there (if it's more than what you said already, that is... you pointed
out drawbacks. There are also advantages...)
XFUT admin.general
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> It is not the current policy to comment on who has or hasn't been given a
> timeout (a timeout is different than being banned, I note) so if you have
> concluded that no one has gotten any timeouts, you may not necessarily be
> correct.
You've spent too much time dealing with NDAs. Seriously, did you agree to not
discuss whether or not, in general terms, timeouts had been handed down? No,
wait -- you wouldn't be able to discuss whether you agreed to not discuss it.
Sheesh.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > It is not the current policy to comment on who has or hasn't been given a
> > timeout (a timeout is different than being banned, I note) so if you have
> > concluded that no one has gotten any timeouts, you may not necessarily be
> > correct.
>
> You've spent too much time dealing with NDAs. Seriously, did you agree to not
> discuss whether or not, in general terms, timeouts had been handed down?
No I didn't.
In fact I already said elsewhere that some had. And, it's causing some very
unfortunate confusion: http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=12077 ... someone
has made an invalid assumption there, and forgotten that we don't censor, we can
only request cancels which users are free to ignore, and if they do, all we can
do is decide if the ignoring merits a timeout or lengthening of an already
planned on.
> No, wait -- you wouldn't be able to discuss whether you agreed to not discuss it.
Er, oops! Forget I said anything. (more and more thinking that the current
policy about this (which I advocated) needs to change...)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Chris Magno wrote:
<snip>
>
>
> So dave. splain me THAT!
>
> I will re-reply to your mesage again.
>
> BUT I thought I'd put this out as an FYI.
>
> Chris
I have an issue with two things--one--if it's a "Psst Chris--don't talk about it
or you'll get banned" thing then I wouldn't listen, and since I've received no
such e-mail (and I'm the main part of this conversation) I would be highly
suspect
2- nowhere in the TOS, that I know of, does it say we can't talk about things
like this--where's the TOS violation?
3 (yes, that's one more than stated, but there are 10 kinds of people in the
world, those who know binary, and those who don't) I dare someone to ban me from
rtlT! :p
Dave K
-bring it on!
-have I made any TOS violations lately? Have I used the 'f' bomb? Have I
insulted anyone and called 'em a 'wanker'? Seriously, rtlT--where all the cool
kids hang out--leave those others out there beyond the gate, where there'll be
weeping and gnashing of teeth on the colour issue.
-perhaps I should investigate the ESL issue--two people, in two months, start a
thread that ends up as a 'whinefest'-- one about not understanding that when
someone says that 'this limitation is due to a finite amount of colour' doesn't
explicity mean that this is a 'promiss' that has to be held to the end of time,
and another the other day that states that 'all AFOL's hate the new colours' but
has since retracted that statement,
Anyway, musing ends now.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Chris Magno wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, David Koudys wrote:
> > In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Chris Magno wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > HEY (ADMIN), I "double dare" you to cancle EVERY POST I have ever written since
> > > day one.
> > >
> > > then what dave? sure 90% of my stuff goes away, but what about the 10% of
> > > USEFUL stuff that was actually good.
> > >
> > > Prove to me that the "system" has checks and balances to prevent that abuse.
> > >
> > > my point. IT DOSEN'T
- snip -
> Dave are you ready for this.....
>
> I just was sent an e-mail warning me that this VERY discussion we are haveing
> ~COULD~ get me banned!
>
> NOW to be fair. this person was NOT an admin (rather someone in the know) but
> I have no reason to disbelive this person. For obvious reasons I wont e-mail
> and "tell."
>
> Chris
Chris,
To my knowledge, this portion of the discussion is not a problem, and I don't
believe there has been anything called out that you or Dave have written to
cause a timeout. (Although the language is starting to get tinged with blue,
please keep an eye on it.) There have been flagrant ToS violations elsewhere
that are being dealt with.
We've discussed "public" vs "private" notification of timeouts. This is a valid
concern. Initially we decided upon private because a timeout was a chance to
give somebody a chance to reconsider an offensive post or set of posts. It
wasn't meant as public chastisement.
In light of the concerns voiced here, maybe it's time to revisit that. Is a
public punishment that's out in the open preferable to a private period of
"quiet time"? If you (generic you, not necessarily Chris or Dave) were, in the
heat of the moment, contemplating posting something that would result in
temporary loss of posting privileges, would a public pronouncement of your
timeout be sufficient to cause you to rethink and rewrite the post?
The last thing I think anybody wants is a perception that LUGNET administrators
sit in a star chamber somewhere, scanning posts for ToS infringement, fingers
poised over a big red button. We're just trying to keep up, and keep the place
civil.
FUT set to lugnet.admin.general.
- Kelly McKiernan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
<snip>
> The last thing I think anybody wants is a perception that LUGNET administrators
> sit in a star chamber somewhere, scanning posts for ToS infringement, fingers
> poised over a big red button. We're just trying to keep up, and keep the place
> civil.
>
> FUT set to lugnet.admin.general.
>
> - Kelly McKiernan
See!!!!
Seriously, people better start realizing that LUGNET, but most especially, rtlT,
is a really cool place to hang out.
And again, I reiterate--what happened in o-t.foo should have stayed in o-t.foo,
and it was *all* in good humour (and you did dare him!)
So, in the imortal words of, well, many many people--
GET OVER IT!!
I want my King back!
Dave K
| | | | | | |
