Subject:
|
Re: Community Policing is a Good Thing(TM) (Was: Re: Do you think there is a market)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 24 Jan 2002 00:22:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1072 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.
if that makes you sick, then you really, truly have a very low tolerance
level...and I am not trying to be funny.
> 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).
GOB is a trademark of their perspective properties, however, I do think
they (Lar and all) do go a bit too much to try and push their weight around.
> 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.
Tim, relax....yes, I think the feud between Scott and Lar is unnecessary and
bad for lugnet....
but saying Scott is a destructive force is WAY out of line...I personally
have dealt with Scott and can personally say that he is generally a great
guy. Again, I am not condoning his incessant arguments with Larry.
But you also have to consider Larry. I think (and this is my opinion) that
Larry does tend to offend a lot of people anyways, whether they voice their
feelings or not.
> > 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
Yes. I know your views on policing and but I say this....UNLESS Todd or Suz
specifically point at a certain group of individuals then the view is a
dead issue. Should we police ourselves....YES...but until we are truly
empowered to say vote someone from using the news posting, the issue is
moot. However, we can "suggest" to the offending party that they are
in violation of the TOS. In that way, I agree and we all have a part in
that...
> 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?
>
> 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.
And that is your opinion....its great that Lar holds it to a high level,
but you hit the nail on the head...the whole issue is A-R. Period.
Just like when Lar said to Allan Bedford what he thought a review was....
Do I agree with you that policing is a good thing....yes if done right.
However, 95% the way it is done now is wrong because you have others
who put in their opinion WAY after the fact. And I think if you are
violating the TOS, you should be given warning by anyone....but I think
only once is enough!!
That is all.
Benjamin Medinets
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
83 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
