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 07:58:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1281 times
|
| |
|
|
"Benjamin Medinets" <bmedinets@excite.com> wrote in message
news:GqF2E7.CGx@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.admin.general, Tim Courtney writes:
> > 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 have a low tolerance level for Scott's posts, given that he tends to
repeat the same drivel over and over again.
> > 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.
I don't think Scott sits at home and thinks 'how can I corrode LUGNET
tonight with my sniping,' but I do think the positions he vehemently takes
in his posts are long-term corrosive to the group. His anti-community
let-the-admins-do-all-the-policing attitude is corrosive too.
> 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.
No. It is our job as members of the community to actively promote our
social norms in a polite and positive manner, which are established for a
good reason, for the purpose of making LUGNET a more pleasant place.
Unless told not to do so by an administrator.
As in the default mode for community policing is ON.
> Should we police ourselves....YES...but until we are truly
> empowered to say
You are within your rights as a citizen of this earth to say, 'hey, don't
pollute' or 'put your icky cigarette somewhere other than on the ground.'
Why then are we not within our rights as members of this community to gently
persuade people to follow our written and unwritten code of conduct?
It would be very nice if some people were empowered to do more formal
policing, but the lack of such an institution should not mean there is no
community policing going on at all.
> 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...
Yes. A community policing post has no real 'authority' behind it, other
than the spirit of the community and the (hopefully) shared opinions of a
majority of community members. It doesn't need real 'authority,' though,
peer pressure works well enough in most cases.
> > [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.
I do respect that he is protecting his assets. So, at least its being A-R
for a reason. ;-) And he was also very polite about his assertion. So, I
think, a bit A-R, but I don't have a problem with it because of his motives
and his politeness.
> Just like when Lar said to Allan Bedford what he thought a review was....
Now that, I'll agree, was terribly A-R. But that thread is over, I don't
care to revisit it.
Anyways, despite all of that, I appreciate what Larry is doing here. He is
a positive force on LUGNET. He cares about the community deeply (I can tell
by the contents of the many emails we've been exchanging recently). I don't
get as irritated at some of his posts as some people seem to. Maybe its not
all Larry's problem? Maybe some people think 'oh, that's Larry posting, so
I'll get offended at it and bite back.' I think no matter what Larry says
some people will always get ticked at him for that reason, they just don't
like him. And I think that dislike is based on people who just won't let go
of past squabbles.
> 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!!
Some of the past situations where people keep adding their opinions comes
when the recipients of correction decide to backlash. I think it is
perfectly acceptable to post a reply to a disrespectful backlash maintaining
an assertion.
The original person doing the police effort, provided he/she is polite and
respectful about it, can't be blamed for the discussion raging on if he or
she doesn't participate in the followup.
And an offender debating his or her actions based on an 'I can do what I
want' or 'we need unlimited freedom of expression here' is way out of line.
So, if someone just doesn't get it, and/or decides to raise a stink about
it, its definitely ok to repeat a correction.
-Tim
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
