Subject:
|
Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 Mar 2005 15:15:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
624 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, David Koudys wrote:
>
> > Explain to me how I violated the ToU?
>
> You posted a post that contained a word that clearly violates the ToU. It
> matters not whether you quoted it, or what context you used it in, that
> particular word is one we come down hard on, consistently. We always have.
And you very well know as a libertarian that one is not responsible for other
people's actions. If someone sprays grafitti on a wall, yet I take a picture of
that, I am not responsible for the grafitti. Just as if I quote a person who
has words or ideas that you don't like, I'm still not responsible for the quoted
text.
> Further, you cannot claim that you did not know you were in violation because
> your post pretty clearly shows you do know it.
My post does no such thing. My post shows that there is a huge grey area, left
up to interpretation. Nowhere do the words 'I know I'm violating the ToU but
I'm doing it anyway' appear in my posts. What I do state is that an interesting
point was made--one that needs to be addressed by the admins at LUGNET. As I've
just said in a ne-mail to someone, my interpretation of the ToU and theirs were
at odds--who is correct? Just because you wear the admin shirt does not
automatically give you the defacto 'I'm right and you're wrong so you back
down!' right. I believe that you're wrong with regard to me. Furthermore, in
the entire time of me posting on LUGNET (being consitantly in the top 10
posters, like yourself), I believe that does not earn me the right to 'be above'
anyone else. That said, my history has shown that I'm very appreciative of the
work of the admins--but i'm not a sycophant--this is an issue and it needs to be
addressed, for the betterment of the LUGNET community. I brought it to your
attention using, in my opinion, using the most extra-ordinary means and
completely against my personal character possible, to underly the point--you
(admins and the LUGNET community, including myself, I might add) need to fix
this.
> Therefore, were it up to me and me alone, all else under the present system as
> it stands now (flawed as it may be, it nevertheless **is** the system as it
> stands now) you would be on indefinite timeout till a cancel request came in,
> plus some definite period tacked on as a measure to remind you that you cannot
> flout the rules, even to make a point. The size of the definite timeout would,
And I would respond by stating, emphatically, that I did not break the rules and
that the ToU is vague in this regard and that if it walks like a duck, quacks
like a duck, and smells like a duck, then it's censorship no matter how cleverly
you disguise it. Furhtermore, now you're making me responsible for something
someone else said. Compounded with the fact that it's you who's interpretation
of the situation is flawed, not mine.
> in my view, depend on your level of intransigence and the number of times we had
> to remind you that the rules apply to you before you agreed that they did. This
> is, I think, at least the 3rd or 4th reminder.
I've never stated that the rules didn't apply to me. I've received 1 e-mail
asking for the deletion, and I pointed out the flaws in the reasonings given. I
then received another e-mail that continued the discussion, and I 'signed off'
(i.e. stated that my post could be deleted) because the point has been made. I
also stated in that e-mail that I believe that I wasn't in violation of hte ToU
but there may be some who feel that I am, and there's the 'grey area'. I, being
who I am, stated that I'll err on the side of 'non-profanity' and asked for the
post to be deleted. By asking for the post to be deleted, in no way, shape or
form does that mean I think the post was contary to the ToU. It's a situation
that must be addressed.
> We do not have to send warning notes or cancel requests if we have reason to
> believe the poster knows better.
And we don't censor but will suspend you until you ask for your
'self-censorship'
>
> You know better. I know you know better, and you know you know better. Aren't
> you, at one level, ashamed of being such a baby? Be a man. Ask for a cancel.
I'm ashamed that people I deemed intelligent cannot see the forest through the
trees. There's a bigger picture here and you're not getting it--we have a
problem. I used whatever means I could to bring it to your attention and yet,
here we are, still going round and round, and the problem still remains.
> Agitate for changes in the rules if you like (and when you do so in a reasoned
> manner we are very likely to listen to you because you have a very solid head on
> your shoulders) but do not violate them while you do so.
There was no violation (imo) and I was, and still am, more than perfectly
reasonable. Show me where I wasn't.
>
> This isn't 1965, you are not Dr. King and we're not talking about oppresssion
> here, we are talking about adherence to rules that you already explicitly agreed
> to adhere to, on a private site, and one designed to talk about toys, no less.
> This is not some big civil rights thing where civil disobedience is useful or
> noble or admirable.
There was no disobedience, and any time an injustice is present, I'll speak up,
using whatever ways and means at my disposal to do so, thank you.
>
> JoJo, especially, knows better as well. He has ALREADY been warned that he
> cannot quote posters the way he's doing, and in my view, he's pushing buttons to
> see what happens. At this point, were it me, I'd ban him without any
> reinstatement opportunity at all, because he's demonstrated a wilful disregard
> for the ToS.
Again, things I'm not privvy to I'll not presume to speak on.
> Give me a break. It's all very tiresome.
>
> We admins are trying to be as light about this as we can in order to make the no
> censorship model work, we ask and cajole and plead, but as someone pointed out
> in response to Kelly, it means that we have to go all the way around the barn 5
> times where on other sites the trip is 2 steps.
>
> What a waste.
>
> I've half a mind to press for dumping the no censorship tradition and move to a
> model like everyone else uses... filters, threadlocking, moderation after the
> fact, cancellation by admins without respecting the poster's desires in the
> matter and the whole nine yards. LUGNET maybe has outgrown the noble "we're all
> friends here, peer pressure will do the trick" experiment of 6 years ago.
Yes, the Community Policing was great. But there's the evolution of society.
We now have admins who are more hands on. I dunno what is better, nor does it
matter--as you've stated time and time again, this is what we have and we have
to work within the structure. If someone finds that there's a busted window in
our structure, raising holy h-e-double-hockey-sticks against the messanger who
pointed it out gets you nowhere. Fix the window.
> Someone explain to me why a no censorship policy is better than that alernative,
> given that there is a minority of immature users here that seems bound and
> determined to flout the ToS and to cause uproars like this one every so often.
Again, that's not what I did--direct this conversation to me and you. I've been
more than rationale, patient and more than willing to hear all sides of this
issue. THere may have been immaturity in the past regarding this issue, but
that's not what's going on right here, right now. Bring it back to me, Larry.
> Someone explain to me why at the premier destination for this hobby, one where
> kids do come to because they're excited about the product and the creations, and
> one where reputations of the entire community are made or broken by what the
> mundanes first see when they start reading... explain how it's a good thing that
> some blowhard can say whatever swear word he wants whenever he wants and then
> spout off about his RIGHTS being trampled in such a way that it gets to be the
> top story?
On this I perfectly agree--why is it on the list of top stories? We're having a
healthy debate in admnin about the ToU, which shouldn't be a 'top story'
thing...
If an admin responded to the original post by stating, "there's ambiguity in teh
ToU and we're looking into it" or "We may look at implementing a language
filter" or some other way of clearing up the ambiguity, then I wouldn't be here.
We cannot state that profanity must not appear on LUGNET and yet have posts from
last year with profanity in them.
> Give me a break. What a turnoff.
>
> You 11 people that spotlighted that first post... shame on you. You're not the
> kind of fans I want to help. Not at all. You 11 people whoever you are? You can
> all go ____ yourselves for all I care.
>
> ++Lar (not speaking officially, not in the slightest)
Yet you wanted to swear right there--you were provoked or whatever to the point
where you're passionately responding to what occurred. That's parenthetical to
the debate, but thought I'd point it out. Is an allusion to a swear word the
same as using the actual word? Dunno--I don't think so 'cause I'm an adherant
to the idea that the 'puter should start putting in ##^&%$ wherever any
profanity currently exists in any post on LUGNET.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) True but irrelevant. You quoted, which was your choice. Therefore it was your action, your transgression. All else is smoke. (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
