Subject:
|
Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 1 Mar 2005 22:19:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
758 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Anders Isaksson wrote:
> Willy Tschager wrote:
>
> > that somebody might feel offended by my language
>
> I wasn't the least offended. In fact, I thought it was a misspelling of
> something (which I didn't try to decode) when I read the post.
I thought maybe it was a either a "term of art" or a non-American English usage
with which I'm not familiar. I still don't really get the point of its usage.
> > BUT I strongly reject the procedure!
> > [snip]
> > In an ironic way someone could ague that the "way" it is done on
> > lugnet is indeed in no way a cencorship; it's much more
> > sophisticated: it's the art of auto-critics in a wonderfull
> > george-orwell-style - get me brainwashed!
>
> I agree with you. There's no difference between admins cancelling and admins
> threatening action if the post isn't cancelled. It just looks better on the
> scoreboard.
There is an important difference (at least important to Todd). It is at least
his understanding that if he actually does the censoring, then he is legally
responsible for the content of posts which are not censored.
The difficulty always has been how to reconcile this with a community desire to
have some boundaries on community discussion. Since it is Todd's prerogative to
deny LUGNET participation to anyone for any reason (without being legally
responsible for those who do participate), the method of having admins notify
people when they cross the boundaries and _asking_ them to remove the post in
question allows self-policing of community standards without making Todd legally
responsible for LUGNET's content.
I'm not a lawyer (though I have helped write laws) so I can't really judge who's
responsible for what. It does seem to me that Todd has tried to cover his
backside while imposing on community members as little as possible. For that I
commend him.
> As far as I remember, I've never reacted on the language in a post from you.
> OTOH, posts from LP have gotten me to heat up several times, not because of
> 'foul language' but because of the offending tone.
E-mail is a notoriously poor communicator of "tone."
> I find it very hypocritical (of lugnet admins) to attack *words* and ignore
> *meaning*.
>
> > I do not wish to be associated with a community which hasn't the bravery
> > to admit that
> > censorship is applied.
I think the community would admit that community standards are imposed (and that
many times that imposition feels exactly the same as "censorship"), but imposed
in a way that avoids legal liability for the content of LUGNET posts.
> The admins could certainly take a softer, more user friendly view, adapted
> to the importance of the break, and if you are a first-time offender.
This is likely true, though again softness/heaviness is at times hard to
distinguish in 12 pt text.
> > It's time to say goodbye :'-(
>
> I think that's a premature decision. Maybe you should take some days off
> from lugnet to let your anger calm down a bit (I understand you completely),
> and then come back and continue the important discussions about LDRAW etc.
>
> Best wishes from a guy who has deleted hundreds of posts before pressing
> 'send', just to try to stay inside the ToU.
Agree completely here. While I've never worried about staying inside the ToU, I
have pre-cancelled posts when I was concerned the tone might be misconstrued.
-John Van
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
