 | | | | | | |
| |
|
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
| | | | | | |
