Subject:
|
Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 Mar 2005 16:22:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
305 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler wrote:
-snip-
| |
Richard’s complaint, I believe, wasn’t that the TOS shouldn’t apply to him
but rather that the TOS was by its very nature an inefficient policing
instrument that is, at times, seemingly unevenly applied.
Regardless of one’s opinion of Richard, it would be incorrect to accuse him
of demanding special treatment for himself.
|
I’m not sure if he was demanding special treatment, as much as he just
ignored the rules and then said the rules shouldn’t apply (whether to him
specifically or to the whole of lugnet). The point is that he questioned the
need to follow the rules.
|
Well, I was responding to the phrasing in
this post in which you wrote
If you refuse to acknowledge that the ToS applies to
you (a la Marchetti), then you will be suspended until you acknowledge it.
I inferred from this (perhaps incorrectly) the assertion that Richard had in
some way refused to acknowledge that the TOS apply specifically to him. If
I’m now reading you correctly, you’re stating that Richard didn’t think the TOS
should apply to anyone (ie, questioning the need to follow the rules).
| |
I seriously doubt he was trying to make a comment about how evenly the rules
are applied, because then he should have argued for closer application of
them - including upon himself.
|
I’m not so sure. If a rule is applied with greater severity to PersonA than to
PersonB, then “even application” can be achieved either by increasing the
severity of PersonB’s treatment or by reducing the severity of PersonA’s
treatment.
| |
His attempt to run around the suspension by posting exclusively in
admin.general showed his contempt for the ToU and the
way Todd was trying to run Lugnet.
|
Forgive me, but my reading of this post inclines me to believe that Richard’s posting privileges were
explicitly limited to admin.general. If Richard subsequently posted to that
group, isn’t that in keeping with the strictures imposed upon him?
I confess that I haven’t scoured Richard postings in admin.general, but did he
really show contempt for the TOS there? How so? Did he post auction bulletins
and political rants? He may have, for all I know, but I wasn’t aware that he’d
done so.
| |
Evenness of rule application wasn’t the issue, it was rule application at
all.
|
If that’s your view, I must still respectfully disagree with it, but my
disagreement is hardly central to the “profanity” issue at hand, of course.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) This post was a violation of the ToS, regardless of where it was posted, even if only to admin.general (URL) it occured after he was warned that he needed to comply with the ToS or else. Hope that clears up your confusion. (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler wrote: -snip- (...) I'm not sure if he was demanding special treatment, as much as he just ignored the rules and then said the rules shouldn't apply (whether to him specifically or to the whole of lugnet). The point (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
4 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
|
|
|
|
