 | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) He said the H-word! He said the H-word! Pick up the stones! (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) LOL, this is so cultural. I have had a lot of contact with youth from the Swedish equivalent to Assemblies of God. They would never ever take the Name in vain or mention the opposite of Heaven if they aren't talking about that final (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) ...and I thought I was a cynic! ;) Scott A (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Shame on you. (Re: Bye, bye LUGNET & hello world.... )
|
| (...) Essentially, that sounds like a highly subjective judgment. This thread makes it apparent that a number of members have concerns about the Admins' judgment in this area. I think we would be prudent to reconsider our whole approach to this (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Wait, wait! Where's the "I love LUGNET" post. Bring it on...*that* will make all the bad things go away... -Tim (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | 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)
| | | | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| (...) if/when? Does Lugnet not view editing the FUT editing? This is widley done by the Admins. I thought if you changed anything about a post than you were editing it. Am I wrong in this assumption? M (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general) !
| | | | | Forced voluntary self-censorship?
|
| So its not censorship but "voluntary" self-censorship backed up by force? In short, this is like a gouvernment that says: "Oh, we are not going to torture you. AI is against this, and we need the good image. But we won't release you from prison (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general) !
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) I like how you are "asked" to do something, but yet if you do not reply, or do not agree to what is being "asked" you are suspended. So, what is the point of asking? Why not say the plain and simple truth - "look, we delete your post of you (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) I have no immediate problem with lugnet's rules. And for that manor I have no problem with the implementation of censorship here. I only object to the claim that it's not censorship. (...) Well the admins, mostly Larry, have stated repetedly (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) LUGNET *was* too peaceful for too long. It's about time. The place is starting to feel normal again. -Tim (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) You aren't considering how "heavy" the enforcement it is for the admins. I think that the particular model selected by Lugnet is unecessarily tough for the admins, and this example illustrates that. (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) (URL) I do>. The post you replied to wasn't necessarily me speaking as an admin, although I can see how you might make that mistake. Your point is taken that admins need to be crystal clear when they are speaking "for" LUGNET. (...) I don't (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) From a site listing Carlin's 7 words: "So far we can still write them on the Internet, at least until the thought Nazi's finally get their wish and reduce the limits of content to that which is suitable for two year olds." Food for thought. M (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Fair point. Kelly is having some tech problems though, so please forgive if he just signs at the bottom till we get that fixed. (not speaking officially here, I haven't yet in this thread.) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote: When speaking as an official representative of LUGNET, please make it clear by using the special symbol that Todd and others use. You presume we all know who you are and that is an invalid assumption. (...) (21 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
|
