| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Thomas Stangl wrote:
> You must have skipped the post I saw...
>
> He may have been ADDRESSING someone else, but he was insulting Richard.
>
> Perhaps you need to follow the thread again.
I saw it... I saw the whole thread. When I read Jon's post I thought...
"hmm.. Jon's stated what many of us know to be true and put it into one neat
package... that's not going to be received well by Richard but I expect just
about everyone else to nod their heads in agreement".(1)
It wasn't exactly an example of an all sweetness and light post, because it
pointed out unpleasant truths about Richard, but it was in my view within the
bounds of the ToS.
Richard's post on the other hand is off the scale nasty in intent, as well as in
wording. It is my feeling that until he gives evidence that he is going to
behave himself in future (2), that his restriction to being able to post only in
admin.general continue indefinitely.
XFUT to admin.general as this is an admin issue.
++Lar
1 - Remember, demonstrating something to be the truth is a defense against libel
charges, and it carries some water regarding slander
2 - All of the following things, taken together, would satisfy me (3) that his
behaviour has been modified. Omission of any one of them would not.
a) a request to cancel the post in question, worded unambiguously AS A REQUEST
with no caveats. Remember, permission to cancel is not requesting to cancel. If
you give permission and I cancel your post, I've still censored it. You have to
actually REQUEST that it be cancelled for it not to be censorship. (4)
b) a statement that yes, the ToS applies to him as well as everyone else and
that his anger or frustration does not give him a special pass.
c) a statement that he will not, in future, violate the ToS in this way or any
other way even close to this outrageously, and an acknowledgement that if he
does, he will be again restricted in his posting ability and that he accepts
that as a fair and just outcome.
d) a public apology, directed personally at Jon, that recants, point by point,
each and every one of the things he said in the offending post, without directly
repeating them and thus repeating profanity.
e) a public apology to every other reader of LUGNET acknowledging the error of
his ways in this matter along with a heartfelt promise to generally do better
in future.
3 - I speak as a reader. What would satisfy Todd is not for me to say and may be
rather different.
4 - His previous statement that it is "OK to cancel" puts the decision in the
hands of Todd (or Frank or I, who also have cancel authority now (5), except
that it ought to be Todd's not ours). So deciding is then censorship. LUGNET
does not censor. LUGNET merely restricts posting ability based on behaviour. So
requireing that an explicit cancel request be made as a condition of restoring
posting behaviour is not, in my view, censorship or editorial control because
the poster can let their words stand if they wish, on pain of not being able to
post further.
5 - Purely in order to be able to deal with cancel requests faster if Todd can't
get to them. NOT to act as censors or moderators. (I expect something more
formally announcing this at some point from Todd)
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Seriously...
|
| "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:HopF1M.7y8@lugnet.com... Snip (...) neat (...) just (...) it (...) the (...) Well.. I have no interests in either way of WHO is getting banned and WHY.. or not... but if something is (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Seriously...
|
| (...) This was exactly my thought. Further, Todd has already established that he is extremely tolerant of disagreements and does not like to police them, I've seen far worse than Jon's message in the past, and as John Neal points out, Richard has (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Seriously...
|
| (...) Although I think Richard let his anger get the best of him when he made the post in question, I think some of these demands are a bit unreasonable. If he were required to do all these things, you might as well just censor his post because you (...) (21 years ago, 22-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Seriously...
|
| You must have skipped the post I saw... He may have been ADDRESSING someone else, but he was insulting Richard. Perhaps you need to follow the thread again. (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
27 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
|
|
|
|
