| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Gerhard R. Istok wrote:
> > <snip>
> > One does not have to be college educated to be able to figure out if one has
> > violated the ToS. I couldn't recite a single item from the ToS, because it
> > has been so long since I read it. But I know the difference between crossing
> > the line over what is and what is not acceptable. It is simple common sense.
>
> As I said in my other post, words in and of themselves are *not* bad.
> It's all about the contex in which they are placed. This is not to say
> that some the reprimands issued recently were not justified but I submit
> that *any* word can be used in a hurtful, spite filled manner. This is
> what the admin should be looking for and not, for example, a post that
> quotes a suposed "bad" word as an example.
>
> -Orion
I agree with your reasoning, words aren't bad. It's all contextual. You can bet
we're talking with people whose posts are inappropriate, trigger words or not.
It's just that the ones with the f-bomb and such are only the most obvious. The
mudslinging, namecalling, and general nastiness of recent conversations have
resulted in a few email warnings, and not just because of out-and-out cussing.
Again, there's not yet agreement within the administrative team about the
"appropriate" level of language usage. Until we come to an agreement on that, I
see this confusion continuing.
- Kelly
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
42 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
