Subject:
|
Re: posting privileges to 1000steine-members revoked!?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Jan 2005 06:42:25 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
296 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, René Hoffmeister wrote:
Snipped the specifics of suspensions etc.
> There have not been any other timeouts given out during the course of this color
> threadset.
>
> Hopefully that makes it perfectly clear what exactly has transpired.
>
> > You know that I'm always trying to be objective about different opinions and
> > -above all- the strong differences between tendencies on LUGNET and on
> > 1000steine.
>
> That's good. I'm sure many people appreciate it. I appreciate it. Understanding
> differences is important and is the first step to bridging gaps.
>
> You have explained to me that 1000steine, by law, has a no profanity policy and
> that you are personally liable to the authorities for the words of all members
> and consequently you and your admins do often remove posts. So yes, there are
> differences. LUGNET's no censorship policy makes things much more awkward when
> issues arise, but many feel it is worth it.
>
> > Should your measures become regularity, I see no occasion for me to
> > try to explain here on LUGNET or mainly in the globalAFOLgroup how and why
> > things are handled on 1000steine.de or to explain on 1000steine.de how and why
> > things are handled here on LUGNET and what we're discussing about in the
> > globalAFOLgroup.
>
> As I said to you in my first private note, that's your perogative, but LUGNET
> admins plan to continue to try to enforce the ToS here with the tools we have
> available to us. I'm not sure I see why you would want to change your
> participation in GlobalAFOL though, as I am not seeing the connection there.
>
> > Instead of this, you could just gag people whenever feelings
> > are running high here on LUGNET and I would just let the 1000steine-members
> > complain about LUGNET in our forum on 1000steine.de.
>
> To suggest that gagging people is what we are trying to do here (evince the
> repeated *requests* (not demands) to everyone involved that they repost what
> they want to say with very minor edits to remove profanity) is not really fair
> or accurate.
>
> We are not trying to stifle discussion. None of these actions have anything to
> do with being pro or con the letter or other things. We are trying to maintain
> an orderly and friendly environment. Nothing more.
>
> Finally, I'll share one personal feeling, not wearing my Admin hat for just a
> sec... I am confused and concerned as to why your post has received so many
> spotlights. I don't get it. Everyone says they want to see MOCs. So why
> spotlight this?
>
> Larry Pieniazek
With all due respect, and Larry (and the Admins I presume you are also speaking
for) you do know I respect you and appreciate the efforts you are making.
I also know that you are well aware of how I feel on this topic, but I feel that
it is paramount to myself that I state the following concerns.
I am forced by my own morality to state that while I feel this explanation is
clear I personally believe that it is not only a shame that specific members
were listed but also unfair. As much as I would prefer Lugnet didn't have any
rules regarding profanity, I understand those are the standing rules and I abide
to them to the best of my ability. I by no means am saying anyone has a right
to break the ToS.
I feel this posting, (although probably unintentionally) is like public
spanking. I think that at all costs a public spanking should be avoided because
they are already complying by cancelling and/or ammending posts or serving their
suspensions (Yes the word "timeout" was intentionally not used here).
Maybe it's my anti-nark ways but I think this post could have been just as
convincingly written while leaving the specifics out. I also feel that this
post breaks any implied confidence anyone places in someone that has sent
information privately. Unless you asked each person listed in this post,
permission to post their name and details of what they said and how they
reacted, then I withdraw such complaint. I know I have shared my own words via
email that I would not want to make it to these boards, although I could live
with the consequences if they did. I would not welcome it.
This by no means is an attack on the system that is in place, but a statement
for privacy and against publicly disclosing names or the information of their
suspension. If I have missed in the ToS where it is stated that this can be a
consequence of breaking the ToS then I would appreciate someone pointing me
towards that direction.
Sincerely and Respectfully
Janey "Red Brick"
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
6 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
