Subject:
|
Re: posting privileges to 1000steine-members revoked!?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:31:26 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
!
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
254 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> 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
That's effective in general for running forums, boards, groups, guestbooks etc.
in Germany.
> and consequently you and your admins do often remove posts.
No, on the contrary, I said, that I can not remember when I deleted an insult
the last time. I think it was before I have written down the Terms Of Use for
the 1000steine-forums in late 2003. It doesn't happen since all users know that
they will not come through with bad wordings (but it doesn't mean that we have
no verbal fights).
In general, IMO cancelling posts for covering the Terms Of Use has nothing to do
with censorship. But as I said, I didn't came into the predicament to explain
this opinion on 1000steine.de
> LUGNET's no censorship policy makes things much more awkward when
> issues arise, but many feel it is worth it.
I see no censorship where you try to cover the Terms Of Use. Does it mean, if
Jojo would call me a xxx xxx with xxx and I feel very insultet, I have no rights
to let this message be cancelled by an admin?
> 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.
I picked the word "gag" from my dictionary. If it's wrong, my fault. I mean, if
you revoke posting privileges, it's like saying "shut up!". IMO this is somewhat
"humiliating" (again: the dictionary).
> We are trying to maintain
> an orderly and friendly environment. Nothing more.
Right. You TRY. And nothing more. Not saying that I don't appreciate it! You
asked me by mail, which way is more effective, your way or the way we handle
this on 1000steine.de. And I can repeat here with a safe conscience: The way we
handle this on 1000steine.de is more effective. Everyone can search the forum
there for "Arschloch", "Wichser" or "fick dich" (I don't translate it to keep my
posting privileges :-). And as said above: It's not because all the insults were
deleted, but there were no insults to delete.
But to make it clear: I do NOT try to change the way the admins are working
here! It only came up and I thought I should share that information.
As for JoJo (now that you call things by name):
He got an email asking for cancellation of his post. This email had a very big
mistake in it: It had NO SUBJECT LINE. And you should know it, what do most of
us (or most of our spam filters) with emails without subject line?
So he got a second email later, revoking his posting privileges for 24 hours.
Until now, neither Jojo nor me know if it's because he didn't asked for
cancellation of his post or if it was caused by simply not answering your first
mail.
But that's only how it was handled. I see in general no need to cancel any part
of his message.
Later you explained me by mail how you handle such issues. I appreciated the
explanation, sent you a sorry for posting my message in public here in
admin.general and offered a cancellation of my message to have further
discussions by mail.
You answered, that you don't want to cancel my message, but I could write a
follow up like "this is resolved, its not an issue". That's why I thought the
problem is solved and JoJo has his posting privileges again.
After that, I asked JoJo if he's able to post something. He was able to post and
that's why I was believing that the problem is really solved and I wrote my
follow up.
Later you wrote an email again to Jojo and me, asking why JoJo is posting
something on LUGNET although he has a timeout. Can you imagine, how Jojo felt by
reading it? And how I felt by reading it? Later you explained, that a timeout is
not system-enforced, but heck, how should we have known that? Also, with this
email, for me the problem was NOT solved as posted before and I'm still very
annoyed about that!
The upshot of the whole affair: Jojo was in fact annoyed too and wrote you a
cynical mail. I think you were also annoyed about this email and you're thinking
about prolonging Jojos timeout.
This whole thing is confusing, time-consuming and absolute needless (IMO). And
not effective.
Leg Godt!
René
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
6 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
