|
|
 | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, David Koudys wrote: -snip- (...) Hey Dave, Thanks for the thoughtful responce. The effort has been to fully enforce incidents of cursing, regardless. I've suggested a few times in enlisting more people as 'Mods' for whom (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) I'm starting to come around to this way of thinking myself, actually. But how do we solve the legal liability problem? No other site seems to care about it as much, but part of why this policy is the way it is, (IIRC from the discussions back (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Censorship (was Re: Bye, bye LUGNET)
|
| (...) I can only speak to the ease of implementation, but I believe it should be pretty simple. Maybe 3-4 files that will need to be edited, assuming we don't get fancy and allow custom filter-word-lists. (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, David Koudys wrote: <snip> I want it known that I wrote this before Larry posted his tirade!!! ;) I was just slow in the composition so it shows up after his rant... Dave K (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote: <snip> (...) *cough* /toggle filter on *cough* ;) Yes times change, but what word out of Carlin's 7 is appropriate now to post on LUGNET as opposed to when they first came out? Simple--none. Not one of (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) That's almost the issue. I think the issue is that the admins say it's 'asking' when in fact it's 'forcing'. Yes, you can choose not to cancel your post, and leave LUGNET forever, or you can give in. It's like saying "I'm not robbing you, I'm (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler wrote: -snip- (...) I'm not sure if he was demanding special treatment, as much as he just ignored the rules and then said the rules shouldn't apply (whether to him specifically or to the whole of lugnet). The point (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, Terry Prosper wrote: <snip> (...) must... resist... cliche... (...) For the most part--k, for 99 percent of the part, I think Larry is a guy who steps up and does what he thinks is better for the community. At least he (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| I'm writing this as a user of Lugnet, not particularly as an Admin. I'm writing this way to get the reactions of other users in this concept. == If Lugnet has added 'no cursing' to the ToU for the expressed purpose of making this site friendly to (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) That's exactly right. The note he posted excerpts from was not the first note, or even the second, but rather the third. The first note merely asked if he meant to use the word choices he used, and asked if he wanted to cancel. What I got back (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Taking no sides here, as I do not know the person, but Chris, with all due respect, your post is insulting to me. I use this word as I please and I do not feel less intelligent because of it. "Maybe you should study a little"? What are you, (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) As much as I dislike the condemnation of single words without context, given the society in which we live, there are certain words to which this applies. (...) Larry's email is not indicative of a zero-tolerance approach to the issue. On the (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) The policy itself is not intended to "cease offensive content" - see the following post for a more detailed explanation. (URL) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) 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. (...) There is an important difference (at least important to Todd). It is at least (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) [snip] (...) The goal behind the new policy is that we modify people's behavior so that some people don't get offended and leave, but the policy and its implementation is making people leave. Is this a good thing? Kevin (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Censorship (was Re: Bye, bye LUGNET)
|
| Forgot to answer this portion in previous post... (...) I think we'd all agree the current process is inherently inefficient and completely human-driven, and appears somewhat arbitrary. Nobody is arguing that something far better needs to be (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) The admins are in the business of issuing value judgments, so I contend that any decision that they make can spark shouts of favoritism which is why this should be, at the very least, marginalized as a factor in a judgment if not disregarded (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) All day I've been trying to remember something--this reminds me of a movie I saw years ago-- (URL) - or the Gentle Art of Japanese Extortion Basically there were these 'not quite thugs' that would 'not quite intimidate' people into paying them (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) [ snip ] (...) Not really - I think I understand pretty well your argument about language, and have no problem with it. (...) It's difficult to judge things like this accurately when the entire sequence of events isn't presented fully. Willy's (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) I see your point, but I would not want to filter this one, for obvious reasons. (...) You don't need a foolproof language filter, nor can it be made 100% foolproof either, IMHO. When you take out the 'foolproof' requirement, this sort of (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
|
