Subject:
|
Re: Community Policing is a Good Thing(TM) (Was: Re: Do you think there is a market)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:41:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1652 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Tim Courtney writes:
> 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.'
If I called up someone on the phone and said, "Hey friend, I think that was
a little over-the-top" I don't think you would know. If we, at one of our
monthly meetings brought up the faux pas that was posted in the
newsgroup--again, I don't think you'd know.
> 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?
Again, my original analogy points out where the issue is here--repeated
admonishments just peeves *everyone* off and does not help anyone.
>
> > 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?
Read the first point
> 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.
I sent you a reply, Tim. I mentioned that, besides this particular issue,
I've appreciated your efforts and/or love for the building systems we've
come to know and love. It was quite similar to the message I sent
Larry--again, someone I've come to appreciate on LUGNET.
>
> 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.
But why did you feel the *need* to post? To be first? It was a faux pas.
It wasn't malicious, it wasn't evil, it was a mistake and people should be
forgiven for mistakes, not swatted on the nose multiple times. Hence the
thicker skin that I'm asking everyone to get. The slippery slope into RTL
posts isn't valid for one slip. Repeated offenders need "C"ommunity
"P"olicing. One time slips need, "Psst, but--your fly's down" from a friend.
> > 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.
Wrong--slippery slope rationale (read above) is not a carte blanc to slam
anyone who steps on your toes. It was an accident and we're all human. We
forgive, and life goes on.
>
> I say, if you (everyone) see something that is in a direct violation of the
> TOS, against the
spirit of LUGNET
*BINGO* - the Spirit of the Law, not the *Letter* of the law. We're bigger
than what's written down and we *are* human.
, and harmful if kept unchecked, by all
Yes, *if* kept unchecked- read *repeating* offenders. Again, you are making
my point clearer then I could of.
> 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.
Once again, continuing to make my point, which is jumping on *a*
transgression is "C"ommunity "P"olicing--waiting for that naughty word or
idea. Repeat offenders are the issue, not the slip ups.
> 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.
Nowhere in any of my posts did I ever say that community policing is a bad
thing.
> > 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.
/agree
>
> > 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
Respecting rules, again, not an issue. I obey the law because it's *the
law*--not because the cops have guns. I appreciate LUGNET's code of
conduct, not because of Community Policing but because it makes the
community a better place. But we are people and we slip up. I *sometimes*
do 110 in a 100 km/h zone. Not all the time, but sometimes. If I got
pulled over once, and got a ticket (deservedly) I wouldn't make a case at
all. However, having 20 police cars pulling me over after the fact and
saying "You were doing 110 5 days ago was bad! Bad boy!" would just annoy me
and wouldn't do any good.
Specifically, yes the posting shouldn't have been cross posted to the
general group. (my knowledge of LUGNET is increasing :) ) Yes certain
members of my group shouldn't have aggrivated the situation by their posts.
My 'little tirade' pertains to *everyone* in LUGNET, not just to those who
see themselves in my analogies and/or postings.
To wrap up (I think ;) )
- Community Policing is bad (like smacking a dog on the nose repeatedly)
- community guiding has the potential to be good
- Just because you didn't see the admonishment, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
- Understand the difference between a faux pas and malicious intent.
- We are all human-we make mistakes--listen to the better angels of your
nature and let a transgression slip once (get a thicker skin). That's
all--just once--no slippery slope rationale here.
- Repeated offenders must be dealt with severely and without pity, remorse
and/or sympathy ;)
This has nothing to do with the wrong posting issue--people who post in the
wrong forum do need to be told they are posting in the wrong
newsgroup--again, by only *one* person ;)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
