Subject:
|
Re: stepping up to the dead horse (was some other title)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:52:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
462 times
|
| |
|
|
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 06:42:18PM +0000, Kelly J. McKiernan wrote:
> We've discussed "public" vs "private" notification of timeouts. This
> is a valid concern. Initially we decided upon private because a
> timeout was a chance to give somebody a chance to reconsider an
> offensive post or set of posts. It wasn't meant as public
> chastisement.
I think having a public record of timeouts is important - not only it
allows the users (that you guys are serving, right?) keep an eye on how
well you're doing your job, but it also shows that _something_ is
getting done, and can be used to teach by example what's acceptable and
what's not.
> FUT set to lugnet.admin.general.
Thanks for noteing this explicitly. News-by-email users (like myself)
don't see what the FUT is set to otherwise.
--
Dan Boger
dan@peeron.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
4 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
