| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> 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.
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 savaged John far more mercilessly without causing a ripple (and note that on
the actual topics, I'm generally in agreement with Richard and not John).
>
> 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.
If one scrapes out the profanity, I think it only fair to point out that Richard
says some unpleasant truths, too. But yes, I think there needs to be an
understanding that there will not be a repetition of this incident.
>
> 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
I think someone said somewhere elsewhere in this thread that the truth is no
defense against libel: the opposite is true. The truth is the best defense
against claims of libel.
>
> 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)
I think this is reasonable. Richard has basically said that you can censor it
if you like, but the intent to violate the Terms of Use can stand forever for
all he cares. Well, let's put it to the test.
>
> 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.
I don't see where this is necessary given "c" immediately below.
>
> 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.
It will be a cold day in... (uh-oh, better not go there even if that is an
example of where you can bend the line).
Like I said, scrape out the profanity, and there are some unpleasant truths to
what Richard said - I don't see a need to apologize for and repudiate those.
>
> 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.
Realistically, this is something Richard needs to discuss with Todd. I would
like to see a voluntary removal of the post by Richard (we got the message,
Richard, you don't need to make a monument of it), a promise to do better in the
future, and a general apology for the offensive message. But if it is more or
less, I will undoubtedly support Todd's decision.
>
> 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.
Consequences to his actions. Fair enough.
>
> 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 is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Seriously...
|
| (...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
27 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
