 | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| (...) Hear, hear. And perhaps that would cut down on the 'censorship whiners.' LUGNET is privately owned, it is NOT the public square. I really wish people would get over themselves. Anyways, it's not like I read in-depth enough for this to effect (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| Yes. nicely put. admittedly a filter can be good but not perfect. Even if it only catches 50%, it's helped out and that would only leave the extreme cases for the admins to deal with. The occasional slip would be taken care of most of the time. I (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | (canceled)
|
| | | | | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| (...) I second that, Jason. Lugnet is one of the last forums on the 'net where admins don't moderate posts directly. Fortunately, direct editing hasn't been needed often. But in some cases, it was needed. Ofcourse, asking the poster to do it himself (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) A chat site that my wife used to use had a similar profanity replacement program, it replaced the words with amusing alternative that sometime gave a clue to the original word. However, with a bit of testing it was obvious that: A: There were (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
|
