| |
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:
> > > > 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.
>
> 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 the
> rules. If you do not agree with them to the point that you cannot abide by them,
> take your custom elsewhere.
>
> You are welcome, and even encouraged, to discuss how things might be or ought to
> be in future but for now things are as they are and you must abide by the rules
> while you work for change.
>
> Abide, or suffer the consequences.
>
> You asked for a cancel, which is great. But you seem to think that you did not
> transgress, which is false in my view and that of the other admins. You need to
> accept that you transgressed in the view that matters, whether you agree or not,
> and move on.
>
> Else we will go round and round to no end. What's done is done, you messed up
> and, deep down, you know it.
Deep down I'm extremely worried about the future of this website. When we have
an issue like this, where well intentioned people (not me, mind you--I have an
apparent issue realizing where I screwed up) who point out very valid concerns
about the ToU and further, how, to many people, the admins are saying 'No
Censorship here!' but then basically ban people until they comply to a supposed
'self censoring'. If it's brought on by external factors, it's not 'self
censoring'. Call it what it is.
And if we are censoring, self or otherwise, then censor--if there are posts out
there in LUGNET that have words in violation of the ToU, then censor the posts!
Or it's hypocritical--"This place is for everyone, including the kids, therefore
we, as owners and administrators, have ToU that states 'no profanity'" Yet the
profanity exists. Fix it.
I've stated before that sometimes people get too close to something and need to
step back and get a better overall picture.
Here's the next problem. The post has been deleted. I am now, according to you
and 'the rules', perfectly in compliance with the ToU. I've also stated time
and time again that the ToU applies to everyone, including you and me--I
completely agree with that statement.
I, however, do not believe my post was in violation of the ToU. Furthermore,
the second we start this little 'censor' thing with regards to this current
issue, you are, in fact, stating that I am responsible for what someone else
wrote, if I include any quoted text in my reply. That's of even greater concern
to me, as it should be to everyone. Furthermore, I, along with other people who
have e-mailed me, do not believe that I was in violation of the ToU. Again, you
know how much I dislike 'my group is better than your group', and the only thing
that you have on your side is that your group are the admins. Since I wanted,
and still want, what's best for LUGNET, whilst conducting a dialogue with
another admin, we deemed that what is best for LUGNET was the cancellation of my
post. I stated that in the e-mail--erring on the non-profanity side of this
grey issue.
So now the question is, post has been 'censored', I believe that the ToU appleis
to everyone equally, yet I don't think I was violating it in this specific case.
What are the rules now? Do I still get 'timed out' until I say I believe in
your flawed interpretation of the ToU?
I dunno. You're an admin--you tell me. This isn't Hoppy thinking, as you put
it, that he's 'above the ToU'--this is me and you--two people who are passionate
about what they believe in, and will debate and try to resolve the issue to the
betterment of everyone. I have my stance and you have yours. I've conceded
issues in o.t-d in the past--you know this to be true, so it's not like a
rotweiller with a bone in it's mouth--I have admitted being wrong in the past.
At this time, you haven't shown me that I am in this instance. I, however, have
showed you that this issue is a grey one and needs to be fixed.
Right now, a good solution is to get a filter in place that would edit out any
profane text/words--words that the admins of LUGNET deem inappropriate and apply
the filter to *all* posts, including all past ones. If you don't, then you have
no moral/legal basis for telling anyone that they are not allowed to have
profanity in their posts at LUGNET because there are already posts at LUGNET
that have profanity in them.
I'm not taunting you, like Chris did in .foo. This is a specific instance where
you, as administrators, need to carefully consider exactly what the rules are
really saying and how to apply them. I say there was no transgression, but it
was agrey area and therefore delete the post. I further say that, since it was
a grey area I was not in violation of the ToU.
You guys have decisions to make. Make them good ones.
Dave K
-who will let his history of posts here at LUGNET speak about the kind of
character he is.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) The current process is unweildy, but it's what we've got now. This issue, among others, is helping to define what the policy and process *should be* rather than what they are right now. But as it stands, that's what it is, and that's what we (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
