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 10:12:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1539 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Tim Courtney writes:
> "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.
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrring!
Wake-up. Smell the coffee. That has not been my stance for some time now. ;)
>
> > 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.
Exactly! Respect is a two way street. If users have no respect for the
policeman (as you suggest with LP) how can they have respect for his/her
policing?
Think about it.
Scott A
>
> > 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 is in Reply To:
83 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
