Subject:
|
Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 Mar 2005 00:08:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
852 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> I can't wait to see the firestorm if/when LUGNET staff start editing
> posts without permission :)
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 or dead (dead
being when someone kills it before posting it). The pending stage is
actually implemented as two half-steps, and the labels used intenerally
are "pen1" and "pen2". (Here, the word "pen" means holding area, not
"pending," althought it's a double meaning.) Currently, only "pen1" is
ever used -- this is where articles sit and wait for authentication. The
purpose of "pen2" was to (someday, perhaps) have a second pending stage
where, after authentication, an article then sits and waits (cue the "I'm
Just a Bill" music) for a moderator to approve the message.
I don't know that bringing that partial implementation to fruition,
however, would really address the issues at hand, since it would create
bottlenecks everywhere.
I am wondering what life would be like if offensive posts were simply
flagged as such (somehow) after the fact, and then (by default) any
flagged article's text would be hidden behind a warning.
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
