 | | | | | |
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...)
| | | | | | |
