Subject:
|
Re: Community Policing is a Good Thing(TM) (Was: Re: Do you think there is a market)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 22 Jan 2002 21:44:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
994 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Tim Courtney writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> > You are completely missing the point. You are one of the "twits who actively
> > undermine it with non constructive sniping". Read Brian's words addressed to
> > you again (the ones you have deleted):
>
> I wasn't going to get into this, but your post really makes me sick.
>
> I just read the thread history of this..... setting the Bricksmiths issue
> aside [1], I'd like to discuss the issue of community policing, and how it
> is a Good Thing(TM).
>
> Scott, I beg to differ with your statement above. You do nothing but snipe
> at Larry's comments, seemingly for the sake of sniping at his comments. I
> have little to no regard for any of your words here, in my view (and in the
> view of MANY others I have talked to), you are a distructive force here in
> the community.
>
> > ==+==
> > My whole point was simply to point out that many of us out here on
> > Lugnet(tm) ;-) are tired of Larry and his 'know it all attitude' and
> > personal way of always trying to control EVERY SINGLE thread that goes
> > beyond 4. This is not the first, and I'm sure, not the last that people are
> > going to get irritated with Larry. I can recall over a dozen instances
> > where people, on this site, have complained about Larry and his 'policing of
> > Lugnet.
> > ==+==
> >
> > But I, and others, have made our views clear on "policing" before - there is
> > no real point in doing so again:
> > http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=9989
>
> Funny you cite Frank, who doesn't exacly agree with you. My perception of
> your points is 'leave the policing to the admins, the community members have
> no place in it.'
>
> I disagree wholeheartedly.
>
> I think that each and every person has a responsibility and a right to
> attempt to make LUGNET a better place.
>
> Let me explain this further: Obviously we've seen instances where people
> abuse a position of community policing, or they take the stance too far,
> etc. That's unfortunate. But, there are other instances where people are
> making a genuine attempt to be polite to the 'offender' and at the same time
> guide them to take actions that are more appropriate or acceptable to the
> LUGNET community.
>
> The burden of correcting posters for TOS violations and off-charter postings
> should NOT be put on the shoulders of the admins alone, unless that is what
> they want. At least one admin has spoken up about this:
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=9984
>
> Since correcting people publicly has been blessed, I think the people who
> are interested in making LUGNET a better place should discuss what methods
> are more effective than others, and address the issues of negative response
> to corrective posts.
>
> For example, from my last bout, the incident with Iain Hendry positng
> lewdities, I made a polite post requesting he keep the comments off of
> LUGNET, and copied admin.general. There was severe backlash from the
> offender and a cohort of his, and the rtlToronto group in general took offense.
>
> It was suggested to me privately that the first time admin.general should
> not be copied. Attempt to correct the problem without bringing it under the
> direct attention of the admins. I agree with this sentiment. I think its a
> good idea to post a polite correction in the original group and wait for a
> reply. If the reply is positive, job well done. If it is negative, copy
> admin and solicit the backup of an authority (by crossposting, not
> necessarily by directly prompting an admin).
>
> Another thing I note is it is not socially acceptable to the general LUGNET
> populus to accept correction from another LUGNET member. A far cry from the
> beginnings of LUGNET, where most everyone knew each other and took
> correction graciously if it was made politely. Now, no matter who issues a
> polite correction, they almost certainly backlash 'I don't care who you are,
> you can't tell me what to do, I'll only listen to an admin.' This is a very
> destructive attitude, and it harms the sentiment of a community here. How
> to deal with this problem?
I agree with you on almost all points made so far. I have been a LUGNET
participant for several years now, and feel a difference in the community. I
am ashamed at some of the instances of LUGNET "correction" that have
happened in the past. I won't go into them, as they are for a different
discussion. What I have taken from those experiences are the observations that:
1. There is a need for policing activity by those other than just the admins
simply due to the area needing to be covered. The admins set the rules for
conduct and general nettiquette. It should then be up to their designated
appointees to enforce those rules.
2. I think that it is necessary to have official appointees (curators?) do
the enforcing so that there is some weight behind the corrective action,
after all they are acting in the admins' name. I'm just mindful of the "town
council" concept that was tried and failed some time ago.
I feel that the perceived hiatus of the admins up until recently has
contributed to the decline of civility in the LUGNET community. Todd and Suz
have been nothing if not fair and I cannot begin to thank them for all of
the hard work and effort that they have put into the LEGO community. In
their absence however, we have had to more-or-less govern ourselves.
Sometimes situations were handled fairly, other times they were not.
The key issue is how to take the policing burden off of the admins without
creating a system that fosters resentment, embarrassment or undue punishment
yet maintains the ability to correct undesirable behavior. In the absence of
an official corrective action policy, I feel that community policing is the
best thing available so far. In my experience the majority of people are
able to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable behavior and are
willing to change if they have made a genuine mistake. It is in dealing with
those who are unwilling and/or unable to change where the system breaks down
into the resentment and embarrassment stated above. Frustration grows,
tempers flare, and suddenly you have a 3 alarm flamefest going. Nobody wins
in that situation.
The other thing that I feel needs to be reiterated often is that LUGNET
itself was created by Todd, Suz and others; establishing a certain amount of
respect for their decisions, right, wrong or otherwise. LUGNET itself is a
thing. It is the rest of us who make it into a community. If we want LUGNET
to be "the friendliest place on the Internet" as it once was, we need to be
a little more concious of our impact on the community. A little humility and
respect would go a long way.
>
> These are my thoughts for now. They're targeted at others who are concerned
> and agree that community policing is a Good Thing(TM). It isn't targeted at
> those who destructively want to see community policing eliminated on LUGNET.
> I'm not up to debate community policing as an institution, unless an admin
> speaks up against it. It appears to me that the activity has been blessed.
> Feel free to correct me (admins) if I'm wrong. :-)
>
> -Tim
>
> [1] At first glance, the Bricksmiths assertion is being a bit A-R. But I
> respect Larry's explanation of it and stand behind him because I know how
> important the Guild is to him. There is nothing wrong with Larry making the
> very polite assertion he made.
A bit A-R yes, but Larry was just covering his assets, so-to-speak.
-Duane
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
83 Messages in This Thread:
  
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
