Subject:
|
Re: "Some pigs are more equal than other pigs"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:59:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2064 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Ken Nagel wrote:
> directly from the policy update "personal attacks, i.e. bringing more heat
> than light to a discussion... also known as attacking the person, not the
> position".
I don't see how you could construe it as a personal attack. He explicitly said
that he thought you WEREN'T responsible for the error. Besides, even if he DID
think you were responsible, it was him pointing out the error, not accusing you
of being anything negative. Saying "hey, you made a mistake" is not a personal
attack. Saying "hey, you moron, you screwed up" would be.
> Directly from the discussion Group Terms and Conditions: "(do not) Post or
> transmit any information...which is an invasion of privacy...without first
> obtaining permission from the owner or right holder.
That's admittedly an arguable offense on Larry's part. But following the same
logic you used about your posting of leaked information, Larry's innocent. Larry
found out that you were an employee on another website, and posted it. Was he at
liberty to do so? Were you at liberty to post leaked information, just because
it had already been leaked?
But even if is were a violation, I don't see it as a serious one. Not enough to
merit a timeout.
> From the policy on bickering of May 2002:Messages deemed inappropriate may
> include, but not be limited to: those which contain personal attacks on other
> people,
Don't see it.
> obvious provocations into 'flame war,'
Nope.
> rudeness or gloating during argument,
Nope.
> put-downs,
Nah.
> condescension,
Again, no.
> sly remarks,
Eh, maybe. Again, not nearly serious enough to warrant a timeout.
> insults,
Nope.
> sarcasm,
Nope.
> and other un-helpful, selfish behavior which amounts to excessive 'noise' in
> the LUGNET community.
I suppose. But only insofar as it didn't contribute much. If you were seriously
going to fault Larry on that account, they'd have to be handing out timeouts
every time someone said "Wow, that's a cool MOC!"
> It also may include uninvited morality preaching outside off-topic
Only if you call one's feelings on the word "Legos" a moral issue, or Larry's 2
sentences as "preaching".
> debate and chronic 'baiting' of specific others into spats, which neither
> party will allow to end (ie ping-ponging).
Obviously not.
> Any more questions?
Nope. I still wonder if Lego was justified in firing you, but in light of
Larry's post about you further spreading leaked information, it's entirely
possible that you were released legitimately. If I hadn't known that, I probably
WOULD still have more questions, because your prior explanation of Lego's
reasoning just sounded suspicious on Lego's part.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: "Some pigs are more equal than other pigs"
|
| (...) I really don't see the need to turn this into a debate too however, directly from the policy update "personal attacks, i.e. bringing more heat than light to a discussion... also known as attacking the person, not the position". Directly from (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
71 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
|
|
|
|
