Subject:
|
Re: Community Policing is a Good Thing(TM) (Was: Re: Do you think there is a market)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 26 Jan 2002 02:35:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1470 times
|
| |
|
|
"David Koudys" <dkoudys@redeemer.on.ca> wrote in message
news:GqIEps.3H6@lugnet.com...
> Community Policing, as far as I can see, and as far as those I talk to can
> see, is a few people who seem to read *every* *single* *post* looking for
> naughty words, or for something they can get their knickers in a knot
over.
If that's what you think of the people (including myself) who are doing the
policing, you don't know us well enough.
I certainly don't scour LUGNET for posts that I can jump on. If I see an
infraction, I politely correct. The same with the good sized handful of
other community members with whom I share a similar view of policing - we
guide and correct politely when necessary.
> Reading every single post is not inherently wrong. I'm starting to take
> interest in groups outside my own little LUGNET world and finding that I'm
> enjoying them.
That's good!
Also, for the record, I don't read every single post. I mostly read through
my newsreader where I have set groups I'm subscribed to. At times I read
through the web interface and read posts and groups I wouldn't normally see.
> Properly and/or politely admonishing someone who offended you in a post is
> *not* an issue, either. The issue comes when Community Policing steps in
> and 'lays the smack down'. If you read something that bothered you *and*
> you noticed that the postee was already (and hopefully politely) chastized
> about it, why do you have to add your 2 coppers?
Well, if you're referring to the incident I think you're referring to, I was
the first one to politely correct the offender:
http://news.lugnet.com/org/ca/rtltoronto/?n=3270
There is nothing I see in the news postings that remotely hints to me that
this issue was taken care of before I stepped in and 'put in my two
coppers.'
What happened afterwords was the problem. And the problem wasn't with the
people backing up my post either, the problem was with the offender's buddy
getting hacked that someone didn't like the TOS violation and decided to say
something about it.
I was well within my bounds as a member of the LUGNET community to speak up
about this. Especially when it was posted to lugnet.general, a part of the
server which is not attributed to a specific subcommunity. Its the
crossroads of LUGNET, the public square. My guess is its the group with the
most readers (just a guess).
I think it was acceptable for the couple people to back up my view on the
post, after Richard posted defiantly. If no one followed it up, one would
be left to assume that no one objected to what Richard said.
So, the problem with Community Policing is the guy who can't accept polite
correction. NOT the corrector. We need to make it socially acceptable to
issue polite correcitons, one community member to another. Like it was when
LUGNET started - people corrected with grace and accepted correction with
grace. Why can't this be the case now?
> It's small 'c' community 'p' policing that is a good thing for LUGNET.
>
> 'Psst, hey bud, we really don't appreciate that sorta talk here in our own
> little corner of the world--could you tone it down just a bit? plsthx :)
.'
Can you point out specifically where that happened in the incident above?
Again, I can't see where that ever happened, it is not clear for me. I even
searched back in the rtlToronto newsgroup to see if it happened in another
thread, I could not find anything.
BTW - I never got a reply to the email I sent you asking the same question.
It just seems that you're associating the Iain/Richard incident and small
'c' policing. I don't see any connection whatsoever. No member of
rtlToronto corrected Iain (publicly) before I did.
> Further, having a thicker skin--you don't need a sense of humour (some say
> 'Get a sense of humour about it, would ya?' That doesn't work either), • just
> a thicker skin--to be able to not immediately post right when you are
> offended. It's like some people are trolling to see where they can get
> their soap box out and shout, 'Looky here!! This is offensive and is
> corrupting LUGNET' so now everyone else within earshot has to stop and • look
> and add their side of the issue and it goes on and on and around and • around
> and drones on and it just never seems to stop (just like this sentence), • to
> the point where someone says, 'What were we talking about?'
So we should let TOS violations slide...right? We do that enough, and
discussion here degrades.
I say, if you (everyone) see something that is in a direct violation of the
TOS, against the spirit of LUGNET, and harmful if kept unchecked, by all
means, make a polite post in reply and express your disapproval. At first,
make the post to the same group the offense is posted in. If met with a
gracefuly reply from the offender, job well done. If met with a prompt for
a rational discussion, discuss and continue to make your point. If met with
flak, kick it up to the admins.
Remember, this isn't a question of *if* Community Policing is going to
happen, its a question of *how* community policing is going to happen.
> Bringing up the sandbox again, don't get in a tizzy until someone comes • and
> knocks over your sandcastle.
The community LUGNET has become is everyone's sandcastle. No, not the
server, not the code, not the databases, but the community. The entity that
has grown from the server. The group of people. The environment here. Its
everyone's, so its everyone's responsibility and right to keep it a pleasant
place.
> If some people want to defend their own stuff,
> I support that. So you go on about your (TM). I don't know why that even
> got folded into this debate--It's yours and you have every right to say • what
> you want about it.
It got morphed into this because Scott decided the TM discussion would be a
good place to start sniping at Larry again, this time for his Community
Policing efforts.
> The LEGO company sent me a letter many years ago
> concerning their trademarks. I misused their trademark in something I was
> working on at the time and they heard about it. They were polite, and • they
> were supportive, and they told me in no uncertain terms what the • legalities
> were. I have no problem with that, after all--it's their trademark to
> defend. Why would I get angry at TLC for doing what they did? And if you
> agree with TLC, then why are you giving some people in LUGNET a hard time
> when they want to do the same for their (TM)?
Amen.
> Flogging dead horses doesn't work, either. I can state emphatically that
> the not-mentioned group I belong to hasn't cleaned up it's act just • because
> "C"ommunity "P"olicing reared it's ugly head and was offended. Our little
> corner of LUGNET is, and always has been, a pretty great group. Yes we
> stray once in a while (who doesn't) and we (community policing) took care • of
> whatever situation occured long before it got upgraded into hurricane CP,
> and if CP didn't show up, no one would have even *known* about it and we • all
> would have gone along our little merry ways, all the happier because of • it.
> Think about that. It has nothing to do with 'What can we get away with
> before CP comes crashing in,' but rather people just being people.
Every society has norms and rules you must follow. LUGNET as a forum has
rules, a code of conduct that is clearly spelled out. I would hope that
every group and subgroup would have respect for those rules. Especially
seeing that they get to post for free here.
-Tim
|
|
Message has 3 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
|
|
|
|
