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 13:44:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1667 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Tim Courtney writes:
>
> There are people in this thread that have said all of LUGNET has to hew to
> the same standards. I'm not sure I agree. I think I'm a bit more flexible
> than that. I think certain groups can ((and should) "get away" with quite a
> lot... (the loc groups, club groups, etc) that would raise eyebrows if
> posted to .general or somewhere high traffic. ...c.f. past discussions about
> what words are swear words in Proper English (loc.uk) and 'Strine (loc.au)
I understand that each subcommunity is different. I'm not for strict
adherence to the exact same set-in-stone standards for every obscure group
on LUGNET. At the same time, each group should be mature and good-natured
enough to practice civility and decency in their word choices when they are
posting on LUGNET.
And each subgroup shouldn't violate the spirit of the LUGNET community nor
the TOS - this is intended to be a place where adults can communicate about
LEGO, but it is also a place that is supposed to be safe for children.
As much as I like the freedom to express ideas, here and elsewhere, this
isn't the place to use any word you so choose. Some of the more colorful
language should be checked at the door, or if it has to be used, used on a
private mailing list.
> > 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.
>
> At the risk of being characterised yet again as arrogant, blunt or whatever
> pejorative, I mus say this is exactly right. Lead, follow or get out of the
> way. I won't stand idly by and let a few rotten apples spoil it for the rest.
I agree.
> I'd even really like to see the term dropped. I prefer guidance to policing
> as that's the intent.
That's probably a better way of putting it. 'Policing' has a negative
connotation. Guiding is generally a positive one.
> Except that, as Tim says, it's a vehicle to generate obscuring smoke or
> attacks on me personally. Do those people attacking me and my beliefs and
> desires about LUGNET think that by doing so they are going to stop thought
> leaders from giving guidance? If so they are confused. The vast majority of
> LUGNET citizenry are far smarter than that.
Which, I wish people would just drop. This kind of discussion happens
almost every time someone gets ticked off at something Larry posts. People
need to just give it a rest. 99.9% [1] of his recent posts have been very
polite, yet people love to jump on him.
So, people, please take your pesonal problems with Larry off of LUGNET.
Keywords here 'your personal problems.' This kind of discussion (bash Larry
fest) was beaten to death a long time ago. Acting like this is throwing the
community backwards, not carrying it forwards.
> The problem I have with this "it's the police's fault for being annoyed
> about it" argument is that no less a personage than Suz herself (who really
> Ought Not Need To Be Bothered with this sort of thing, if small c community
> policing was working) had to tell you all to stop, after much jibing at
> those trying to give guidance by some in your group, and you STILL carried
> on complaining even after she finished. Were I her I'd have less hair than I
> did a month ago. She has far weightier issues to worry about.
Yep. I also note that everyone who did complain and backbite after the fact
went off and posted in different parts of the thread - no one had the guts
to take their complaining and write a direct reply. They knew they were
wrong, and they knew where not to tread, but they pushed the envelope where
they thought it was safer to tread.
If you (to anyone, especially the group involved in the incident above) want
to go off and act all bitter and offended (which is an act, nothing more),
go do it privately. The discussion that followed only showed me that
certain people involved had no respect for the greater community, and were
too selfish to admit that they were wrong.
> Well, no. I think this has been debunked. While there's merit in the
> argument in the abstract, in this concrete case it was your community member
> that brought the incident out where it would attract .general (sorry!)
> notice. If you want special norms, don't do that.
Yup.
> And, another idea. Actually police yourselves as appropriate rather than
> merely claiming that you do.
:-)
-Tim
[1] I'm never going to say 100%, for the simple fact that I don't read
_every single thing_ Larry posts. :-) But everything I have read of his
with a 'community guidance' intent has been polite.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
83 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
