Results 6 – 10 of about 100.
|
Search took 0.00 CPU seconds.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Inosanto writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney writes:
> > "tom" <tinosanto@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:GpIFL7.MEB@lugnet.com...
> >
> > > If it is still there, then it is not being drowned out, its just being
> > > joined. When you drown something out you overtake it and hide it from
> > view.
> >
> > Quality MOCs are being overtaken on Brickshelf because of the avatars.
> > They're not permanently hidden, but they're pushed out of the way (and
> > hidden from view on the main Recent page) by an overwhelming number of these
> > avatars.
>
> I was unaware you were appointed to determine what is quality moc's
Tim certainly can determine what he thinks is a quality MOC. He could have
dropped the word "quality" and it would have been valid.
> and what had a right to be on brickshelf..
You're right, Tim doesn't have the right to determine what is allowed on
Brickshelf. He DOES, however, have the right to ask Kevin to change his
policy.
> And there is not an overwhelming amount of these images, thats just you
> stretching the facts to gan points for you.
It is overwhelming to Jon, Tim, me, and a number of other people. The fact
that you don't share our feelings does not negate our opinion. Or is your
opionion the only one that matters?
And "gain points"? What is this, a game to you? It certainly isn't a game for
me.
> > > Nothing is being hidden from your view. It seems you are saying you are • too
> > > lazy to pass these up and hit the 'next' button.
> >
> > Even if it were as simple as that, there's absolutely nothing wrong with him
> > expressing an opinion and looking for backup. Jeff and Jon.
>
> Agreed, but if you say that then you also must say there is nothing wrong
> with what I am saying.
Not quite. Yes, you are well within your rights to disagree with us. However,
unlike you, we are not calling you immature for voicing your disagreement with
our opinion on the avatar images.
> And it is as simple as hitting the 'next' button.
Are you even reading what we write? I sure don't see it in your replies.
> > > In his opinion they are ugly and whatever. But does that mean they should
> > > be banned. I personally do not like the 2001 racer sets - so does that mean
> > > they should be banned?
> >
> > Is there a flood of Racer avatars? There's tons of things I don't like, I
> > don't call for their banishment. Heck, there's a handful of *people* I
> > don't like, and I don't call for theirs [1] without valid reason.
>
> But he IS calling for them to be banned because he does notlike them!!! ANd
> why - because he does not like them, and that is the only reason! Is that
> valid? NO!
Again, I have to ask, are you actually reading our posts? One can have valid
reasons for disliking something, you know. If not, how can any complaint about
anything be valid?
> > There's a valid reason to call for the banishment of Bionicle avatars.
> > There's a flood of them. And it seems that per one person there are many
> > more than needed (I believe you only need one avatar for a perosnal icon).
> > Jon (and now Jeff) are merely expressing opinions. If people agree, great!
> > If not, that's fine too! Great thing about opinions is you don't have to
> > share them.
>
> There is no flood! There is more of a flood of the cad images than these
> images, but you like cad images - so thats ok right? BOTH are lego related,
> and BOTH have a place on Brickshelf, like it or not.
Hey, I think I hear a broken record around here somewhere...
> > I think you're the one who has to grow up. Maybe learn to listen to others
> > a bit and get out of your own little world.
>
> Well if I am in my own little world I like it just fine, I do not try to ban
> something because I do nto like it, I have the maturity to pass it over. And
> I am listening to others, and I am disgusted at the 'I do not like this, so
> lets ban it' talk. If you do not like it, thats your right - but that does not
> mean you have to ban it.
Ah, so you've never voiced a complaint on anything? Asked for something to be
removed from anywhere? The root of both actions are disliking something. The
Civil Rights movement was due to a group of people disliking their treatment by
another group, and they called for a ban on such treatment. They must've been
wrong, hmm? Now, you may claim this is a bad example again. I'll use an
example from Lugnet. Were we all wrong to complain about Matthew Moulton, who
was being disruptive in the newsgroups? I mean, we could've just ignored his
messages, I suppose...
Jeff
|
|
|
|  
moulton
(score: 0.229)
|
|
| |
G'day folks,
Note 1: I decided to compose this post because of the events
of late concerning Jesse Alan Long. If you don't want to read
something that will make your head hurt, skip this ;]
Note 2: I am not arguing with any actions that have been
or will be taken by LUGNET Admin against JAL. As Todd said
himself during the Moulton Affair(tm):
[paraphrasing, I couldn't find the post] "This is not a debate".
'Nuff said.
Note 3: This post is not about Jesse. Unfortunately, however,
I will be using him as an example. I apologize to Jesse to
this.
Note 4: I put this in this newsgroup because that's where I
feel it belongs. It's about LUGNET. If you think it should
be in off-topic.debate, you're missing the point :]
Note 5: My opinion since the first week of JAL's posts to LUGNET
were that we were being attacked by yet another "social engineer",
perhaps Moulton again. Like Selcuk, I too noticed too much
duplicity in JAL's posting style. Perhaps the real JAL was being
spoofed somehow. At any rate, I'm going to assume for this post
that my conispiracy theories are completely *false*.
On with the program...
~~~~~~~
Is it possible for people with "special needs" to be welcomed
into, and co-exist peacefully with, the LUGNET user community?
~~~~~~~
Loaded question, eh? ;]
When Jesse's first posts arrived, I thought he could be in one
of three categories:
1) He's a "troll", "social engineer", whetever.
2) He's a kid, telling a few fibs on the internet.
3) He has some behaviorial difficulties owing to a medical
condition.
Unfortunately I chose the "guilty-until-proven-innocent"
assumption: number 1).
Because of this I myself took part a little bit in some of
the fun made at Jesse's expense. Since that meant I was
violating my "don't-feed-the-trolls rule", I tried to keep it
to a minimum and drop it quickly.
I did however spend a lot of time early on laughing my butt off
over the exchanges between Jesse and others. I thought some of
them were absolutely hilarious. After a while though it became
very tiresome, mostly as the tone of the exchanges evolved for
the worse.
In the back of my mind a little voice was nagging me. It was
telling me that categories 2) and 3) above were still very
real possibilites. And probably more likely than assumption 1),
which I took.
I see a very key difference between category 1) and 2/3). The
first one is someone who is being disruptive by *intent*. It's
pre-meditated. The latter 2 cases are not. Whether that person
is being clueless, annoying, or even breaking some rules, it
represents the limits of behaviour that that person is able to
achieve currently in their life. While they may be able to
improve their behaviour to something a little more agreeable to
the rest of us, that change takes (relatively-speaking) a very
long time. Category 2 means the kid needs to continue maturing,
which obviously takes time. Category 3 means that person's
behaviour is decoupled from their age---their character may not
evolve at the same rate as the kid in 2. They may never attain
behavioural patterns that the rest of us find tolerable.
Had people on LUGNET assumed Jesse was in category 2, they probably
would have just ignored him if they weren't interested in
communicating with a kid, and likely wouldn't have made (as much)
fun at his expense. If his behaviour was still unacceptable, I'm
sure some off-line activity would take place. I believe those
under a certain age require parental consent to post here. Those
parents could be contacted in such a case.
But what of someone in category 3? If the person is left on
their own, well, we've seen what happens. Many of us have
variously categorized Jesse with degrees of "badness", assuming
that his "disruptions" were willful, and that he wasn't interested
in taking anyone's advice.
Well what if he *can't*? Maybe it's simply an unfortunate
truth for him. But it is not *intentional*, he just can't help it.
This has been bugging me for some time. And I do feel really
bad about the way things have gone down. I felt like saying to
a few people off-line, "hey, did you ever think that maybe...?",
but I chose to stay out of it.
I think many of us who frequent LUGNET are more than capable of
spotting someone who seems "different" somehow. We figure they
may be in one of the 3 categories above, but we just don't know
which one. Individually we all form different theories. And
that's where trouble starts.
I would like to see LUGNETers toss out some ideas about how
this could be handled in the future. Perhaps LUGNET Admin could
develop some SOPs (standard operating procedures <G>) for
"debugging" rare cases such as this. Contacting the poster
off-line, asking some questions, feeling them out to try to
assess which category they may be in. Perhaps move on to
requesting communication with a parent, etc. Communication like
that could very quickly flush out what the issue is. And
then the other LUGNET users could be made aware of this somehow,
and tactfully, such that they exercise a little more patience
and tolerance in that special user's regard. I dunno, maybe
they even have a little brick appear next to their name on
posts (web-interface only, I know), or whatever. Just something
that hopefully would make difference.
I would hate to think that LUGNET, a site devoted to a bunch of
people who like LEGO, could end up being accused of not being
tolerant and understanding of those with special needs. Remember,
in written communication the poster can conceal every single
difference that may bring prejudice from others except
one: their mind, with its various limitations.
I look forward to hearing comments.
Peace,
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
|
|
|
|
moulton
(score: 0.215)
|
|
| |
To all who read this,
The post I am refering to has foul language and the link should not be
followed without you being warned.
Todd,
Can you please address the situation of the following post:
http://news.lugnet.com/people/?n=2508. I feel extremly excessive language
has been used here for little purpose and this should be addressed by the
administration of LUGNET.
I do not come to LUGNET to read this kind of thing. If I wanted that, I
would be advocating the return of Matthew Moulton.
Jude Beaudin
LUGNET #549
|
|
|
|
moulton
(score: 0.215)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Kirby Warden writes:
> Well, if we're going to start banning people from Lugnet for cussing, I'll
> be more than happy to do a little research and pull up all the delinquents
> that I can find, and it won't be overly difficult to find a couple.
hi,
To be honest, if there is anyone else who used this language, I would be all
for banning them. Especially if when they were approached on the issue they
tried to dodge responsibility for it and then blamed someone else, and then
stated that the rules of Lugnet as in the TOS just don't apply to them:
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=9410
If there is anyone else that has been so disreguarding of the rules as JAL
has been, I encourage you. The only other person that I know of that has
been as disruptive to Lugnet was Matt Moulton, although he was a much worse
case indeed. That doesn't excuse JAL for his actions.
This is not a case of picking on him for one post, he has shown a constant
history of negative activity. This swearing just crosses the line into
direct TOS breakage, and not a mere annoyance:
I quote the TOS:
"5. (do not) Post or transmit any unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous,
defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, or indecent information
of any kind..."
its not hard to find the TOS and you have to agree to follow them when you
post, and JAL has already said he doesn't feel obligated to follow them, so
I'm sure we can expect more of this behavior from him.
> However, I think that banning for using slang in this instance should be
> avoided. If you must promote the banning of someone, howabout finding
> another reason other than that you think someone is annoying and ignorant.
You can call it slang or whatever you want, it breaks the TOS which he
follows at his own whim, and it gives the admins of Lugnet a good reason to
ban a known troublemaker. I have thought he was annoying and ignorant for
months, but the reason I waited until this incident to request the ban was
because he had given us no real reason to. I agree with you on that just
finding someone annoying is a terrible reason to ban someone.
> Personally, I don't find it very difficult to avoid posting to a thread that
> I dislike, although I have read through many.
me too. I don't post in response to JAL at all anymore, and believe me I
could have said a lot to him these past few weeks. I stopped myself because
I know it is pointless to attempt a conversation with him. I honestly tried
a couple times as many of us have.
> Just my own opinion.
I do appreciate you posting it. I just happen to disagree with you on this one.
cheers!
Joel K
|
|
|
|
moulton
(score: 0.215)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Matthew Gerber writes:
> Firing up the ol' paranoia machine...
>
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > (just like, to a certain extent, I was happy for Matt to insult us all)
>
> Matt who?
Moulton
>
> Unplugging the paranoia machine...
|
|
|
|
moulton
(score: 0.211)
|
More: Next Page >>
|
