Subject:
|
Re: stepping up to the dead horse (was some other title)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 22 Jan 2005 03:31:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1011 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Johannes Koehler wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, David Eaton wrote:
> > - has <person x> been timeoutted before? How often?
>
> I get the impression you are all for stigmas, are you?
> (I react quite sensitively on things like that, as in the country where - by
> chance - I was born, in the past stigmas were being used to discriminate
> people in the most nefarious manner.)
I suppose you could say that-- and I'd like to think that nobody would
discriminate based on such things, but it's information that sometimes helps me
get a handle on who I'm talking to.
Often before responding to someone on Lugnet that I don't know, I'll do searches
for posts they've made in the past. Try to figure out where they're from, what
sort of builder they are, what they've done, etc. It sometimes helps me
understand who they are a bit better, or where they're coming from.
If they've gotten a timeout, that's of note (at least for me). If I came across
someone who had been TO'd, I'd try and find out why. Was it a post that was a
raging pool of emotions? Were they fully aware of what they were doing, but did
so anyway to prove a point? Was it someone who didn't know any better? It might
help me get a clearer picture of someone.
Could it be used badly? I guess it could. But then again, so could a lot of
things. People are going to bias themselves on LOTS of stuff, much of it even
more trivial. So one thing I'd advocate if it were made public would be putting
it somewhere out of the way, not in everyone's face. No post to admin.general,
but instead maybe to some other webpage, like "timeouts issued for month X".
> > But I guess in general I'm just all for freedom of information.
>
> So what other info should be recorded in the rogues' gallery? Biometrical
> dates (eye colour, hair colour, finger prints)? Sexual orientation? Religion?
> Venereal diseases?
See, I just don't care about these kinds of things. I'd gladly post any of the
above about myself if you wanted to know. If the Lugnet profile asked for them?
I'd probably enter them. Well, maybe except for finger prints. I guess I could
see a little more room for abuse of that particular information. I could go on,
but I think that discussion probably belongs in off-topic.
Anyway, I don't think I'd limit *that* kind of information to the "rogues". I
certainly don't think anything beyond information relating to the ban would be
required. At the utter most information I can think of that could even POSSIBLY
be wanted in relation to the timeout:
- reason for TO
- timestamp of TO
- timestamp of acknowledgement
- timestamp of end of TO
- agreed duration of TO
- post(s) relevant to the TO
- privilages retained for .admin.general?
- offender's rebuttal post/reasons
> Come on! It's Lugnet, a place where people talk with other people about a toy
> system (ideally). It's not the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
You're absolutely correct, and I don't have any right to that information. But
that doesn't mean I wouldn't still prefer it. I won't put up a fight about it if
there's no public record of those offenses, but I'd be happier if they were
there.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
4 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
