 | | 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: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
|
(...) That's my sticking point too... we can technically put a filter in place, but that won't stop people from going around it. If they are going to violate the ToS, they're going to work at it. It's more a matter of understanding that rules are in (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
|
(...) If the code puts ###@%% in for a list of words, then any word that 'slips thru' would be manually edited such that the word is now #@%#@#. The code'll catch the 95 percent, thus freeing up admins time for the other 5. Dave K (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
|
(...) Kelly, I think you misspelled "poopstorm." Anyway, that reminds me: when the posting authentication stuff went in a few years back, the architecture underneath was such that a post goes through "stages" of life: submitted, pending, then live (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
|
(...) if/when? Does Lugnet not view editing the FUT editing? This is widley done by the Admins. I thought if you changed anything about a post than you were editing it. Am I wrong in this assumption? M (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
|
Yes. nicely put. admittedly a filter can be good but not perfect. Even if it only catches 50%, it's helped out and that would only leave the extreme cases for the admins to deal with. The occasional slip would be taken care of most of the time. I (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
|
The problem is that we're not dealing with momentary issues where someone mistypes or whatnot. Willy went out of his way to use a cuss, and then went out of his way to obfuscate the Admin's process of dealing with his cuss. A filter won't deal with (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
|
OK, maybe we really do need two different discussions to happen, but the two are inextricably intertwined. Filters would catch the slips and that'd be a Good Thing(TM). Admins then have to deal with the bad eggs who intentionally try to beat the (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
|
(...) I would actually like an aswer to this. I would like to know what is and what is not considered 'editing' by the Lugnet Admin team. M (20 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
|
(...) Well I dunno about any other editing, but I don't consider changing the FUT as editing, as it is only a suggestion anyway. All they are changing is where they'd like followups to go - you are still free to override that. And NNTP admins have (...) (20 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
|
(...) This hasn't been discussed on the list, and I'm sure there are probably a variety of opinions, but I'll offer mine. Overriding the FUT of an article alters the article's metadata item known as the "Followup-To" header. While this is not part (...) (20 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
|
(...) Yes, it did. Thank you for taking the time. M (20 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
