Subject:
|
Re: stepping up to the dead horse (was some other title)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:44:22 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
484 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Dan Boger wrote:
> 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.
Nothing really to add, but I agree with Dan. I'd want to see what the
administration has done-- mostly to try and gauge:
- how often are these things done?
- what sorts of things result in timeouts?
- has <person x> been timeoutted before? How often?
It also does have the effect of the person who's been timeoutted possibly being
embarrassed publically, but really, I think that's probably suitable punishment.
Plus, it seems that often, people who are banned/timeoutted (been called banned
in the past) actually want to PUBLICIZE the fact that they've been reprimanded
(sometimes for sympathy or sway).
But I guess in general I'm just all for freedom of information.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
4 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
