Subject:
|
Re: "Some pigs are more equal than other pigs"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 23 Jan 2005 04:16:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3827 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Ken Nagel wrote:
> > No, but divulging personal info without permission is obviously a
> > violation of TOU
Assuming the information is "personal" rather than "common knowledge".
> Ok, I'm looking at the ToU agreement: http://www.lugnet.com/admin/terms/
> Specifically, do you mean that his divulging of your association with LEGO
> without your permission violated point #6 of the Discussion Group Terms
> and Conditions? That is to say, do you feel your privacy was invaded by
> his mentioning your association with LEGO? Do you believe that he knew
> and understood that you wanted your association with LEGO kept private?
>
> > > Did you find his wording involving the words "messing up" hurtful?
> > Hurtful no, but an obvious attack especilly when he himself has been so
> > picky within debate forums where there should be more latitude for this
> > type of thing.
I'm not sure what Ken means here, some elaboration might be helpful. What is it
that I've been picky about, exactly? And how does my being "picky" correlate to
the assertion that this was an "obvious attack"?
Up until this incident, I had no idea Ken bore me any animosity whatever.
Specifically, I assumed that he, like so many other AFOLs, supports the LUGNET
administration's efforts to maintain order and therefore, when he received a
warning from me on behalf of the rest of the admins about his divisive
behaviour, that it was purely something that he would take as feedback, not
something that he would take as a reason to bear him animosity. That was the
sole previous time we have had any direct communication.
It's not like admins warn people because we don't like them, after all. As I
said upthread, that's not the way administration here works. And, as I said
before, I bear HIM no animosity, so why would I or should I assume he bore me
any? That would suggest that he would not respond well to feedback. Which, as I
have said many times before, is not my default assumption, I assume the best
about people.
Only if he bore me justifiable animosity, and I knew that in advance, would a
joke that mentions him even POSSIBLY be an "obvious attack". It remains
unobvious to me even now that I know that Ken doesn't like me, something that I
had no idea was the case prior to yesterday.
I would assert that his animosity is not actually justifiable, unless doing the
tasks required of administation are in and of themselves a valid reason to be
disliked, because I believe that reasonable people would agree that warning him
for his behaviour in the Maersk thread (that warning was supported by the rest
of the admins) was a reasonable thing to do and that a reasonable person would,
when warned, not instantly dislike the messenger.
> Larry, was it your intention to attack Ken or Ken's sensibilities when you
> used the words "messing up"?
No. It was to have a little fun with the notion that the mundanes almost always
mess this wording up. I've commented on this before on LUGNET, and so have
others, as searching will validate. I think it's amusing. It has nothing to do
with Ken, he was just the re-poster of the copy.
Further I was certain it wasn't Ken that wrote the text, as I said in the post,
but rather that someone else wrote it.
> > > Was it the act of replying publicly to make a correction that you felt
> > > was an attack? The cross-posting to .off-topic.fun?
> > How about the fact that he felt the need to mess with a public invitation
> > like that.
> Do you mean that it was his intention to mess with the invitation for the
> pleasure of it? Or do you mean that he should have worked harder to
> curtail his natural-born pickiness in this case? Would it have felt less
> like an attack to you if he had posted the same reply later down the road,
> after the event had taken place? Or is nitpicking a club invitation just
> completely wrong altogether?
>
> When you saw Larry's reply to the NILTC invitation you posted, how did it
> make you feel? Did you write Larry privately and let him know that you
> felt hurt/attacked by what he posted, and ask him to cancel his post on
> account of that? Or would have been pointless since the damage you felt
> was already done?
>
> > Obviously coupled with the fact that he seems to think the rules are for
> > everyone else-Thus the Orwell reference.
>
> Do you mean that Larry is, in your eyes, breaking the ToU while unfairly
> enforcing it upon others?
>
> I can't tell you you're wrong for feeling your privacy was violated; if
> your employment with LEGO was something that you wanted kept strictly
> confidential (and everyone who knew you worked for LEGO knew that you
> wanted it kept confidential), then I certainly empathize with your feeling
> extremely uncomfortable by someone divulging that information without your
> permission. I'm pretty sure, however, that Larry didn't realize that he
> was sharing confidential information when he included your employment
> status in his post.
>
> Larry, did you have any idea that Ken wanted his association with LEGO
> kept confidential when you posted your reply to his NILTC invitation?
None whatever.
He has stated his affiliation with LEGO Brand Retail in the past, on what I
consider a public group (chicago-lego@groups.yahoo.com), many times. Never, to
the best of my recollection, was there any statement by him on that group or
elsewhere that he wanted that kept confidential. Hence, I would characterise
that affiliation was "common knowledge".
Further, I assumed the knowledge of his employment was widespread already on
LUGNET, although I admit I didn't go out and consciously search for that to
validate it. It just wasn't something I even thought to do since I've known he
had worked there for quite some time and I know a lot of other people that know
it too.
> What do you think about Ken's feeling that his privacy was violated by
> this?
I'm not sure I agree that it's a valid feeling because the circumstances, in my
view, don't support the notion that there was a privacy violation.
Further I'm not sure it's appropriate that he should *want* to keep his
affiliation a secret.
The other AFOLs I know of that work in Brand Retail make no secret whatever of
their affiliation. Tim Courtney went so far as to put an explicit disclaimer in
his campaign materials when he was running for LDraw Steering Committee stating
for the record that he did work for Brand Retail (at the time. He no longer
does.)
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: "Some pigs are more equal than other pigs"
|
| (...) That wasn't for you to decide. (...) “I can't imagine him messing up this spectactularly." (...) Up untill you felt the need to screw with a public invitation and further can't take responsibility for your actions I felt no animosity. (...) (...) (19 years ago, 23-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: "Some pigs are more equal than other pigs"
|
| (...) I think Ken means that your correcting the word "Legos" was being picky. (...) I'm not precisely sure, but I think Ken felt that the pickiness slighted the NILTC announcement. (...) Do you mean that you think Ken bears you animosity now? Ken, (...) (19 years ago, 23-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: "Some pigs are more equal than other pigs"
|
| (...) Ok, I'm looking at the ToU agreement: (URL) do you mean that his divulging of your association with LEGO without your permission violated point #6 of the Discussion Group Terms and Conditions? That is to say, do you feel your privacy was (...) (19 years ago, 23-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
|
|
|
|
