Subject:
|
Re: My Timeout
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:56:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
868 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Duane Hess wrote:
(snip)
A couple of points:
- the text Duane posted in the top of this thread was originally sent to me and I shared it with the rest of the admin team. There is a lot of good, thought provoking material in there and you can be sure that it’s being thought about.
- the suggestion for a new way of filtering (one that blocks a post if it includes ANY group that you have filtered out, rather than one that one that allows a post by if it includes any group that you HAVEN’T filtered out) seems to me, personally, like it has a lot of merit. Ideally, both approaches would be available and you could choose. I can’t predict when or if such a thing would be implemented, or even if it’s technically possible given the implementation, but I personally like the idea.
Note also that both Duane and JoJo’s timeouts have now ended. I would have
preferred if they had chosen to cancel and repost their posts, but they did not.
That is their choice under our no censorship model.
I think they both are valuable and positive members of the community, I’m glad
the timeouts are over, and I hope to see contributions from them going forward,
in adherence with the ToS. However, both of them now have to realise that
further violations of the ToS may result in more lengthy timeouts.
Larry Pieniazek
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: My Timeout
|
| (...) All of them? No. I'm more realistic than that. I do beleive that a new filter would go a long way towards healing what I feel is currently the biggest issue with LUGNET though, that issue being noise. Examples of the effect (and before anyone (...) (19 years ago, 21-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
