| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, David Koudys wrote:
> > 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.
>
> True but irrelevant. You quoted, which was your choice. Therefore it was your
> action, your transgression. All else is smoke.
Your interpretation. If the >'s were still in the post, and I didn't do any
editing at all, and the entire post appeared with mine, then where does that get
us.
Furthermore, you are ignoring the greater issue where we say "Profanity bad!
Must be removed!" (whether it's for the kids or not is not the issue--the fact
that we have this rule is the issue) yet profanity exists on LUGNET in posts
that are not cancelled, nor probably will be due to the 'unresponsiveness' of
the authors, then we're hypocrites.
What if I just said, "Nope, I don't think I violated the ToU--I say don't remove
the post" and I get 'timed out'. First--time outs happen when people don't obey
the rules--in this case I believe that I'm within the rules but you don't
believe that to be the case, so, in my mind, I'm banned for no 'real' reason,
but again, parenthetical...
I get 'timed out' but the post remains. The time out remains until I 'cave in'
to the 'self-censorship' rule--i.e. I'm timed out until I adhere to your flawed
interpretation of the ToU.
First, that's honestly censorship, so lets call it what it is. Secondly, what
makes your interpretation of the ToU better than mine? You wearing the admin
hat? That doesn't cut it (for me, anyway). I support the admins. that said,
I'm not going to cave into every whim and desire of the admins, especially
regarding a grey area such as this.
And it's truly a grey area or there would be no debate about it. Fix it and
stop chastising the messenger.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Still a violation and not just *my personal* interpretation. We already covered this the last time JoJo pulled this stunt. Quoting that word will not be tolerated. The rules are what they are. LUGNET is run the way it is run. Do not violate (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
