Results 66 – 70 of 100.
|
Search took 0.00 CPU seconds.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> I'm not sure I do want to speak to him, but I'm also not sure about how is
> banning came about. I pointed out posts earlier which (I think) were worse
> than his. So why were they allowed, when his "input" is not?
Below is a copy of a message I have just written to Matthew via e-mail.
If Matthew does show up here today, please try to keep things as civil as
possible.
--Todd
_____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:24:33 -0400
From: Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com>
Organization: LUGNET - www.lugnet.com
To: moulton@hscis.net, moulton@innw.net
Subject: posting
Matthew,
There is some concern that your posting to LUGNET has been blocked without
giving you ample opportunity to respond and/or defend your position.
I think that your concerns are very important issues, but the way you
brought them up wasn't in a manner to which the community is accustomed.
I have removed the block for lugnet.admin.general, where you are free to
participate in discussions relating to the concerns you have raised, so long
as you avoid insulting people or causing additional flamewars. It is OK
with me if you flame, insult, or criticise me or LUGNET in
lugnet.admin.general, but please do not flame, insult, or criticise other
people there.
Thanks,
--Todd
|
|
|
|  
moulton
(score: 0.815)
|
|
| |
G'day folks,
Yesterday, I think it was, I posted a message about how happy I was
that I managed to stay out of the flame war. Now that discussions
are a lot less heated, I think I'll add some thoughts. I've been
thinking in point-form lately, so don't look for continuity :]
Emphasis of these being *my* personal opinions to be added to
all these points.
In no particular order:
1) On LUGNET's site: I believe this site to be "owned" by
T&S. They may do with it whatever they please. They may
enforce whatever rules they see fit. They may censor whatever
content they wish. As much as they prefer to do things to
keep everyone happy and not censor, what action they take is
completely up to them. As much as I appreciate having my opinion
considered, I do not feel I personally am responsible for
actions taken by T&S. It's their sandbox :] I'm happy with that.
2) On posting links: If someone merely posts a link to their
site that maybe had unpopular content, that is none of LUGNET's
concern. As long as the site content is related to the LUGNET group
in which the link was posted, then posting the link is on-topic.
If the message posting the link (not the link itself) is
violating the ToS, then that's a different issue to be handled
by T&S as they see fit.
3) On off-LUGNET content: I'm with EJ on this one.
What people put on the internet at large should not concern
LUGNET. If someone has something on their site that is of concern
in the real world (e.g., threats of violence, etc.) then
that is not an issue for LUGNET to police. People can report
it to authorities, and let the systems that be assume the
responsibilities for action/judgement.
If someone has a personal site that is not "advertised" using LUGNET,
then that is also of no concern to LUGNET. I could have a
porn site somewhere (involving LEGO even! :] ), but as long as
I don't advertise it on LUGNET then it is none of LUGNET's business.
Ditto for personal lives. I could be the most upstanding member
of LUGNET, but yet be a prison inmate somewhere, for pedophilia
even <UGH!> But that is none of LUGNET's concern. (Again, caveats
to T&S being allowed to do whatever they wish with their site.)
4) On on-LUGNET content: There is no wrong in posting
unpopular opinions. With all due respect to JJ, TC, et.al.,
everyone is allowed their own view. You can argue over them
if you wish. If you disagree with someone's off-LUGNET content,
then that is between you and them. I don't think it's fitting
to drag it onto LUGNET. That's something everyone says MM did
(the RTL vengeance deal). If you disagree with someone's
on-LUGNET content, then that is no reason to call for a ToS.
5) On this "LEGO Community": What is this? Yes there are a lot
of us from all over the world with common interests. Yes there
are some people here that I enjoy communicating with. But what
is this "unified entity" that people keep referring to? I am
an individual with my own opinions. And I'll express them as
it suits me. If they rubs the site owner's the wrong way, then
I'm gone. Their call. If someone comes here with some kind
of vengeance crusade against the "community" that did him wrong?
I'm sorry, but that doesn't include me. If I got into it with
someone personally then I'm involved, but only then. Don't
get me wrong, I think this is a great place with a lot of
great (and perhaps some not so great) people. I really enjoy
being here and playing well with others. I just get irked
when I'm labelled as "The LEGO Community" in regards to some
kind of external affairs, such as dealing with TLC, dealing
with "disruptive interlopers", dealing with off-LUGNET content,
etc. If that's what LUGNET is here to do then maybe I'm in
the wrong club? I like to remain neutral when it suits me...
6) On MM: The bit with the attempt at "social engineering"
doesn't jive with me. I don't think anyone would ever attempt
that. I think that was all just cover from MM after he done
what he did. Smoke and mirrors.
7) On the flame war that ensued: I can't conceive why anyone
would set out to wreck havoc in an on-line group. It is just
way too much effort for whatever perverse satisfaction it could
give. For sure for that same amount of effort someone
could have much more fun with heavy drinking or something :]
8) To MM: Dude, wow. If anyone ever went at things in the
physical world the way you say you're used to them in the e-world,
they would get killed. In a bar fight somewhere probably :]
I can't possibly believe you do things like this for real. If
you do then, and I mean this as non-insultingly as possible, you
really should get some help. Unfortunately I don't know where
you go for that. If you have some good genuine friends, start there.
If not, then that could be your problem. But don't feel
embarrassed about that. I'm pretty much a social loner myself
and I know that it's not good in the longterm. You can get
pretty "cold". You have to make a very concerted effort to
do something about that, and it takes a lot of work. I know
this, trust me :] Definitely do *not* go seeking help on the
on-line world. Get rid of the damn computer if you have to.
This box is no substitute for the real people.
9) There is no point 9).
10) To MM on your LUGNET status: Matthew, if it were my site,
you'd be gone that first day. End of story. But it's not my site.
T&S make the call here.
I don't particularly want any part in any kind of voting deal to
make that decision. I think you messed up pretty bad, and a
good portion of it was intentional. It's not because of your
off-LUGNET content, but because of your on-LUGNET conduct.
I would hope that you have learned something from it all, but I
will *not* presume to say we are all better than you and you "need
to improve to be more like us". What you decide to do with
your life is ultimately up to you and nobody else. Cherish
that, it's one of the few things that really matters :]
Should you decide that playing on LUGNET with the other kids is
something you'd really enjoy, then do that. Just deal with
conducting yourself by the owner's rules, that's all. If someone
pisses you off, deal with it outside of LUGNET. Or better still,
go play Unreal or something to vent it..., it cannot really be worth
getting all that upset over.
But *DO NOT* pledge to be here only to post links, and not discuss
anything to keep others happy. That's absurd; you might as well
just not be here. You have opinions, share them. Others don't
like them, tough love. Just keep within the decorum expected
by the owner's, and you should be fine.
End o' rant :]
Peace everyone,
KDJ
______________________________________
Kyle D. Jackson, LUGNETer #203, Canada
|
|
|
|
moulton
(score: 0.814)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Rudy writes:
> > Todd,
> > I don't think this is a good idea. You, of all people, don't need to get • into
> > a shooting match about who has done what for the community. I myself think
> > highly of you and, through what I've seen on Lugnet, you are stooping very
> > low. Please don't start one of those horrible threads that fills the inboxes
> > of America with mindless name-calling. I think we can all agree, including
> > Matthew in one of his earlier post, let's stop now and let it rest. What is
> > said is said and we don't have to dwell on it and look childish. Please! I
> > believe EVERYONE on Lugnet is above this, and we should ALL stop.
> > Thanks for your time
> > -John Rudy
>
> Todd's just as much a part of this community as anyone else here, and I don't
> think anything should limit him from speaking his mind, aside from his own
> discresion of course. I think he's also looking out for the community by
> standing up to Matthew here.
>
> Yes, I hope Matthew leaves, or better yet, is blocked out from the service.
<insert voice of moderation>
Well, Matthew Moulton has been, IMO and in the apparant majority of opinions,
a jerk today.
*BUT* If you search back, you'll notice that he's been an infrequent,
generally reasonable poster for upwards of 6 months. His track record on
usenet is bad, but ultimately that isn't his track record here - although it
should be taken into consideration. Other people have (again, IMO) been
ruder, or less considerate, without a call to block them from service - they
just haven't been as rude in as short a time.
If he continues to post in the same vein, then yes, I think he should be
ToSed - he's being obviously disruptive, and that falls under point 5 of the
Terms of Use.
But if he apologizes, or even just stops being a jerk, then he should be left
to his own devices, such as they are(1).
James
1:Like Todd, I guess I'm just not impartial enough to get around someone's
personal offensiveness to see the inner greatness of their models.
|
|
|
|
moulton
(score: 0.813)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Stanley writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes:
> > > Isn't it easier to deny him to post,
> >
> > Well, technically, yes, of course...but I don't see any clear-cut grounds for
> > that, do you? He's walking the line very carefully.
>
> Screw the line.
>
> The guy's a [first choice], and he needs to go away.
>
> Period.
I happen to agree. Since this thread started, I've exchanged a few emails with
the lovely Mr. Moulton, and I have to say, I think he may have actually crossed
the line-- just not in the way that anyone has before, I think. His admitted
intent is to create a flame war here on Lugnet. For whatever purposes he thinks
he's doing it, I don't care. His admitted intent towards Lugnet was
destructive (well, suffice to say, he's admitted his intent, and IMHO, it's
destructive-- he hasn't admitted directly to wanting to destroy/be destructive
to Lugnet) And if that intent isn't explicitly in the current Terms of Use,
perhaps it should be, if it isn't already implied enough.
> I feel guilty for not keeping up with LUGNET as much as I used to, but man, I
> had no idea we'd acquired our very first 100% genuine complete [first choice].
>
> I haven't seen posts that antagonistic and arrogant since I stopped reading
> the repetitive drivel in the political Usenet groups. We don't need that crap
> here - not now, not ever. This sort of behavior makes J.W. look like a
> candidate for everyone's best friend.
I think the distinct difference between J.W. and [first choice] is that:
A. JW seemed to honestly not realize the severity of the situation. Matthew
knows it.
B. JW, being young, has great potential to change. According to Matthew, he's a
lot older, and has a vast history of flame. Not likely to change.
C. JW showed a distinct desire to change and reform himself in order to show
respect towards the community at large. Matthew has done the opposite. He's
refused to change, show remorse, or the slightest quark of respect.
Does this mean he should be permanently ousted? Maybe not. Perhaps if he shows
a willingness to change, he can appeal to Todd, whose judgement I trust in this
matter. But for now, I think it's better that he's gone.
DaveE
|
|
|
|
moulton
(score: 0.813)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney writes:
> This whole thing has gotten me thinking -- Matthew was out to prove a point,
> right? Matthew is also a jerk and has serious problems, right. But, just
> because he carried himself *very* poorly here doesn't mean he might not have
> something valuable to say to us. I'm just trying to think if there's
> anything about this community that is out of whack, like he suggested.
Ok...I occasionally babble, I'm long winded (and unrepentently so...), and I
am a fanataical advocate of commonly disparaged themes. That's my
contribution to the wackiness of this community... (hey, every village needs
an idiot or madman)
> I was talking to a friend yesterday about the whole deal - someone who has
> slipped away from Lugnet intentionally but unnoticed. That person feels
> that the community is elitist, and from that person's perspective I
> understand. They feel that when they post here people ignore them, that
> they're a good candidate to kill a thread, etc. I don't like it that my
> friend has had that experience here.
A couple of anecdotes for you...
I had a friend who was Hip-hop DJ that used to love "breakin' out the
bricks" for a couple hours after we would get back from consuming adult
beverages at the local club. He would always make comments to me about not
lettin "the crew" (our other drinkin buddies) know that he liked to build
spaceships when he was intoxicated. He admitted to having a Lego stash that
he would hide from his roomate and girlfriend. In a phone conversation, I
told him about Lugnet. In a subsequent conversation he said, "it's cool and
a little weird" that there are ALOT of Lego builders and websites devoted to
Lego and that people spend so much time building. He commented that he was
a little embarassed being almost 30 and liking the same toys as his son. In
reference to LUGNET, he said, "hey, I like Star Trek too, but I am not a
Trekkie...those people scare me" Ultimately, Lego is a guilty pleasure for
him and he feels no compulsion/passion to do more than play a little and
look at some pics.
Locally, I know a guy that is an avid builder, but he is very private, kinda
stubborn, and has no desire to really become part of an on-line group. I
pointed him towards LUGNET and he was thrilled to go through the mech and
space links. He likes pictures, but could care less about ANYTHING else.
He thinks discussing Lego is like watching sports... If you can go outside
and do it, why watch someone else. He also commented that building a
website probably too much longer than building anything you would put on it.
A quote "If you are gonna build, BUILD! Don't just talk about it" (this led
to a lengthy spirited discussion about the merits of sharing ideas)
In these 2 cases, the people had different priorities and LUGNET did not
fulfill their needs... will it ever, maybe...time will tell. Lugnet was not
elitist per se, it just didn't meet their needs. Overall, I have pointed
dozens of auction winners and acquaintences towards Lugnet, 90% of which
have viewed it as a Godsend. Some others have commented that they lurk on
LUGNET because:
They only like to build/collect sets+ not create MOCs
They don't have a huge collection
They don't have a digicam or a website
They don't wish to "compete for attention"
They believe LUGNET is primarily a "U.S. thing"
Too many others know much more about Lego than they do
SNIP
> I certainly don't want to see anyone hurt
> by this group of people. Unfortunately we had a very upstanding member of
> this group leave a couple weeks ago from frustrations.
> So I open it up for thoughts on the issue, and am willing to discuss and
> examine just the same myself. Anyone?
Ok to discuss this issue and elitism consider a few points:
Do you value one member's opinion above another?
Do you read certain posts in a thread because "todd" or someone else wrote it?
Are you skeptical of strangers?
Do you rate the opinions, MOCS, etc. of established members higher than
"newbies" or "right" or "better"?
Do you seek approval of one individual or group over another?
Are you disappointed if no one comments on your post in a thread?
Do you think some members get preferrential treatment?
Do you think a group or person excludes or discourages other individals or
groups?
Do you like to interact w/ likeminded indviduals or groups?
There are many more related questions, but these are just a few. I can
honestly say YES to all of the above since I have been on LUGNET.
For my part...
I will always look at a craigo creation (because I have been impressed by
his work)
I try to catch all of the posts in . Pirates from Lndsay (because I learn
something) and Richard Parsons because I like the dry wit and interesting
pictures
I will value some opinios over other because they are consistent or
insightful (Gary Istok's commentary on elements)
I cringed when I saw matt posts here because i remember the flame war that
buried rtl as a viable discussion forum and brought me here
I think some members are worshipped, coddled, and praised... some have
earned a place of respect due to their contributions and knowledge (which is
the natural order of things) and some have endeared themselves to the masses.
I believe that is the nature of groups and group interactions. Every
community has various components, factions, leaders, followers, etc. The
United States is 1 country with 50 seperate divisions which are further
subdivided into counties,cities, towns, neighboorhoods, citizens, etc.
LUGNET is an on-line community of Lego enthusiasts with how many sub-groups,
themes, clubs, etc? I can say the same thing about my family, my church,
the local pub, or my neighborhood. The essence of which is the desire of
one person to share with other likeminded individuals. Elites, cliques,
clubs become a natural evolution. Life ain't fair, Schtick happens, and
contrary to some beliefs, everyone does not necesarily like everyone else.
However, that does not mean that we should ignore the contributions of
others or disrespect them. Why not offer encouragement to "newbies"? Why
not be open minded? Why not act as a community? (say Hello to the aussies
or read .space instead of just castle once in awhile.)
I think their has been an ABSOLUTELY AMAZING evolution/revolution in
building in the past couple years. This may both encourage and discourage
others. "newbies" and "de-lurkers" have been coming out of the woodwork for
quite awhile. Why not foster a friendly environment that kindles a passion
in the ambivalent or says "come on in and sit awhile"? (I don't mean 12
steps, group therapy, "let's all hug" and cume-baya here folks... I would be
the first to hurl = )
> And someone slap me if I'm crazy. I'm writing this because I think that
> what we saw yesterday was pretty serious, and if the community has anything
> to do with it I'd like to see that change. If it was all Matthew and
> whatever he was smoking, that's all fine and dandy I s'pose.
>
> Peace all...
> --
>
> Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
In reference to the Matt issue... My objections were to the antagonistic
manner in which he presented himself. I think critique and commentary are
essential elements of this hobby, but he approached the process in a
negative/destructive way. I don't wish to ban criticism, debate, or
discussion in favor, I just think we can do it in a positive+friendly way.
The Ultimate lesson of Matt Moulton can be a positive one...
THE STRENGTH OF LUGNET IS THAT IT IS A COMMUNITY...
The fact that the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts is evident
here. Why not rejoice in it? That which Matt sought to destroy may yet
become stronger from his passing.
John
> http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
> http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
>
> ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
|
|
|
|
moulton
(score: 0.812)
|
More: Next Page >>
|
