 | | LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
LUGNET administration has always had the ability to temporarily or permanently suspend the posting privileges of a user or member. In the past this has been only very rarely used. The mechanism for doing so was such that only Todd (or for a time, (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.announce, lugnet.general, FTX) !!
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
Finally! Good move. Should've been done long ago. Hopefully this will restore civility to LUGNET. (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(I'm trying to guess where the FUT was supposed to be - .admin.general?) (...) I think this is a good idea (not just the accoutnability, but the whole suspension bit). But I'm trying to understand the technical details - when someone is suspended, (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) The ability to give time outs has been there (and has been used, in rare cases) for a long time. What has changed is the process for doing so and who is authorised to do it. (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Kelly set .terms on purpose, by the precedent that Suz set when she announced ((URL) the "New Policy on Bickering in LUGNET Newsgroups", not by mistake. I've reset the FUT there to keep things together (there is already another followup there) (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Sure, np - I wasn't trying to second-guess, just to guess what it was actually set to, since news-by-mail doesn't reflect that, and I wasn't feeling adventerous enough to look up the msg itself on the server. (...) Right, the process seems ok, (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) SNIP (...) I would like to thank the LUGNET Transition Team, those listed here as well as those not listed, for their continued efforts on behalf of the AFOL Community. I also hope that the mere mention of this new policy and consequences (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) I believe that LUGNET should have this right as well. Almost every other usergroup or discussion board I read has the ability to ban posts from users or IPs. Administrators in some of these other boards do not seem to adhere to a (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) As do I, but realistically, it will need to happen at some point, as we've all seen increased instances where something like this will be necessary. I don't think the "threat" of a timeout is sufficient, the actuality of it will need to be (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Just out of curiosity, is there any sort of appeal process? For example, if Lar doesn't think that his hypothetical 24-hour Timeout is appropriate, can he request a review of the decision, or is the decision considered to have been reviewed (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Yes, I know. But Todd has been notably absent from LUGNET, and Suz completely so, for quite some time and anarchy has prevailed. Hopefully this new power to be wielded by the TT can do some good. (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
Admins - Thanks for posting this outside of .admin so that everyone sees it. The Terms of Use need to be updated to reflect this new policy as well as some other changes. For example, both your post and my reply are against the TOU: 8. (do not) Post (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Agreed. There are a number of relatively small things that need clarification, revision, expansion or elaboration. But I think these are all at the margins, the main thrust is clear. (...) I scratched my head about this for a bit, as I wasn't (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) If they don't receive a note because of an inadvertant TOS violation (forgetting to update their email), is there an email address they can contact you (collectively) on? If so, that email should probably be included on the 441 message page. (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) We have not developed one. Hopefully there won't really be a need but if there is, (that is, if someone gets timed out and then sends a note to the admins contesting the decision) we would either look at it again, ad-hoc, or develop one. We (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Seems to me like it might be a good idea. Probably ought to go on the list of things to look into post code freeze and I'll so recommend. (...) I think that might be a bit strongly worded... "remiss" sounds so pejorative. (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) snip (...) I was referring to the fact that FTX and images within posts are prohibited by the (URL) TOU>. A reasonable person who has been posting to LUGNET for years might know that the TOU is badly out of date and no longer reflects reality. (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Possibly prohibited. I don't see it that way, even without clarification (...) I saw the cite the last time, thanks. I do appreciate the re-citation just in case I didn't see it (although I responded directly to it), but I think the quote of (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) What part of the TOU is ambiguous? It says "It is a condition of your use of the discussion groups that you do not: (X)" - meaning that if you do X then you may not be allowed to use the discussion groups. Are there any other parts of the TOU (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
This could be the beginning of the end for me... "Making disparaging remarks about the personal integrity of others merely to make a point" So I can't call Soren Roberts the smelly village idiot, with all the integrity of a back-room pornographer? (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Keith Goldman wrote: <snip> (...) What????? These new rules mean that we can't lay down the smack??? K, I'm a changin' my vote! ;) Dave K (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Um, as I understand it the truth is always a defense against charges of libel. So you should be OK. Or are you saying he's not actually those things? I get so confused. (1) More seriously, and this is a real problem that I don't know the real (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) I'd say it's a matter of intent. "Smack" and banter = OK, so long as it's clear to smacker and smackee that it's all in fun, not a serious slam. And as long as it's not scatalogical or profane (remember, that's what email's for!) I wouldn't (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) The part that questions whether FTX is allowed specifically. Images, as they appear in FTX are definitely ALLOWED by that rule, because you are not posting a binary image, as the TOU specifically indicates not to do, you are posting a URL to (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Marc Nelson, Jr. wrote: <snip> (...) In situations such as these, I often consult 'the oracle'... Judge Payton: "Judges are bound to interpret the Constitution within the strict parameters of the text itself. The Constitution (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Hey Marc, I see that you have been reading my posts. Any particular reason why you refuse to acknowledge the facts and you refuse to stop insulting both myself, and the admins of CSF and CC? And to put those quotes in context: "I respond to (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) I think part of the reason why is that an appeal process would probably take longer than a suspension in the first place. Most suspensions would be in the range of 24 hrs to 72 hrs (1 day - 3 days) - and an appeal process (which would require (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Yeah, now that I think about it, I guess that makes sense. But does a Timeout go on one's "permanent record?" If not, then a 72-hour appeal process wouldn't be of much use against a 24-hour Timeout. But if a Timeout does remain as a blot on my (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) I don't think we have one of those. If we do, I don't know where it is. If I were pressed to name everyone that ever got a timeout, it would be from memory and incomplete. I don't know that we need one, though. (...) I don't think you have one (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
What follows below is MY OPINION and should not be confused with Official LUGNET Policy. (...) I'd say (unofficially) that anything and everything you say and do on Lugnet goes on your permanent record. Dealings between you and the Administration (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
Repost with updated formatting to avoid FTX display bug, ironically enough... (...) Hello Marc, The perceived absence of clear guidelines, and lack of consequences for poor behavior, have already had a chilling effect on LUGNET discussion. That's (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) 1) You have some nerve to speak your piece on back-room pornograpers. I know back-room pornographers, sir; you are no back-room pornographer. Too long has the plight of the BRP gone ignored. BRP's work in our schools, our churches, our (...) (20 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Nick Kappatos wrote: Snipped some smack... Good smack always trumps a poorly thought out insult. My disclaimer: Theoretically all post are hypothetical. (pinched that from a forum that puts our idea of insults to shame) (...) (...) (20 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Does this post and the new process and authorising of said reminder, not imply that their will be more of presence of it being used? Respectfully requested Janey "Red Brick" (20 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) "more of presence" ?? Did you mean higher probability or something similar? If so... Not necessarily. (20 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) This actually makes no sense to me then (and yes, please bare with me, since I have 40 ounces of Bailey in me, being the New Year et al, plus the added affect of various "smokebles"..... )..... I have only one question then........ Why bother (...) (20 years ago, 1-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Happy New Year, Janey... Sorry if my answer was a bit cryptic there! What I am trying to say is that if the new policy means that people act more in accordance with the ToS than they have in the recent past, it may well be that no time outs (...) (20 years ago, 1-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) [snip] So I guess that means you're hoping the "increased presence" is just making the policy more obvious to newbies and forgetfuls? ROSCO (20 years ago, 1-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) snipped the state I am in (...) And to you. (...) Np, just looking for clarity. (...) Yes, I fully understand that wishful thinking, but considering I'm here posting while fully loaded on New Years, and to quote Mick "You can't always get what (...) (20 years ago, 1-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
Kelly J. McKiernan wrote: [snip] (...) Is the following reason, really a good reason for discontinuing sn individual's access? I would have thought that the best way to stop "a should be dead thread" is by not responding to it. Why not let people (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Sorry that you don't follow lugnet.admin.terms. It's generally considered bad ettiquette to post to someplace and ask for an e-mail response because you don't read that forum... Perhaps someone else will forward this to you if you don't stop (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Yes, I understand that, and I am probably alone in my opinion, but I think that if an initial post is important enough to be placed in a given group, then the thread should live in that group. I am not a fan of having to chase discussions (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
"Christopher Masi" <cjmasi@*nogarbagepl...e*rcn.com> wrote in message news:IA4uH8.I2t@lugnet.com... (...) A few points: First, by that logic, the announcement groups should be open to discussion. Also, people should feel free to conduct all the (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Frank Filz wrote: <snip> (...) No! There's no one here like that!! We're all one big happy family! ;) Dave K (20 years ago, 11-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Clarification: Matt Miller is on this list, but doesn't appear on the admin.general sidebar, is there a reason for that, or is it just an oversight? ROSCO (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Thanks for thinking of me. :) It's an oversight. Mostly these days I'm busy with the new baby and with work, but I'm also keeping the lugnet servers up to date and helping with the administrative issues when I get a chance. As things calm (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) -snip- (...) -snip- May I ask if these rules are still being honored? Or are the members of this forum prey to dogs and trolls? I have several complaints. Paid Member #1051 (19 years ago, 21-Sep-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
