 | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
|
(...) ...and I thought I was a cynic! ;) Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Shame on you. (Re: Bye, bye LUGNET & hello world.... )
|
|
(...) Essentially, that sounds like a highly subjective judgment. This thread makes it apparent that a number of members have concerns about the Admins' judgment in this area. I think we would be prudent to reconsider our whole approach to this (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
|
(...) Wait, wait! Where's the "I love LUGNET" post. Bring it on...*that* will make all the bad things go away... -Tim (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
|
(...) Hear, hear. And perhaps that would cut down on the 'censorship whiners.' LUGNET is privately owned, it is NOT the public square. I really wish people would get over themselves. Anyways, it's not like I read in-depth enough for this to effect (...) (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)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
|
(...) I second that, Jason. Lugnet is one of the last forums on the 'net where admins don't moderate posts directly. Fortunately, direct editing hasn't been needed often. But in some cases, it was needed. Ofcourse, asking the poster to do it himself (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
|
(...) A chat site that my wife used to use had a similar profanity replacement program, it replaced the words with amusing alternative that sometime gave a clue to the original word. However, with a bit of testing it was obvious that: A: There were (...) (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) !
|
| |
| | Forced voluntary self-censorship?
|
|
So its not censorship but "voluntary" self-censorship backed up by force? In short, this is like a gouvernment that says: "Oh, we are not going to torture you. AI is against this, and we need the good image. But we won't release you from prison (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
