 | | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update —Dan Boger
|
| | | (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 —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
