Subject:
|
Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 Mar 2005 08:52:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
717 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.announce, Willy Tschager wrote:
>
> (copy'n'paste from larry's email)
>
> > The model that we use is that we do not cancel things because "we don't like
> > them" or even because "they are violations". Rather, the model is that the
> > user must ask for a cancel. Not say to us, "cancel if you want" but
> > explicitly asks for a cancel, because that way we are not exercising
> > editorial control. That is the way that things are done on LUGNET.
> >
> > We want you to explictly ask for a cancel of this post, by referencing the
> > URL.
> >
> > If you do not ask for a cancel, it is our view that you are in violation
> > of the LUGNET terms of use. It is your choice whether to be in violation or
> > not, because LUGNET does not censor, but if you choose to remain in
> > violation, we may in turn choose to impose a timeout either of a definite
> > length, or, if it is our belief that you will continue to transgress, until
> > you decide you wish to be in compliance, acknowledge that the ToU applies
> > to you, and ask for the offending posts to be removed.
I like how you are "asked" to do something, but yet if you do not reply, or do
not agree to what is being "asked" you are suspended. So, what is the point of
asking? Why not say the plain and simple truth - "look, we delete your post of
you can kiss posting here good-bye for however long we think is good for you".
Why try to sugar coat it? Sorry, how it is done now seems "silly" to me.
Now I will sit back and wait for the "I love Lugnet" posts that alllllllllways
follow the "goodbye" posts.
M
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
