Subject:
|
Re: Community Policing is a Good Thing(TM) (Was: Re: Do you think there is a market)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2002 09:19:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1047 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.
That is your view. But I have also noticed that you have the ability to
|start arguments here. Do you disagree with that? It's a hunch, but I am
pretty sure that you have been involved in more bickering than I have over
the past couple of months. I'm pretty sure the same could be said of Larry.
So why pick on me? Because I dare to disagree with LP? Because I dare to
show him up as a hyocrite?
>
> > ==+==
> > 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.
Read the message and its reply.
>
> 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.
I agree.
> 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.
But it has to be done with respect. Respect is a two-way street.
Scott A
>
> 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.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
83 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
