Subject:
|
Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 Mar 2005 19:53:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
786 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, David Koudys wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > 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.
> 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.
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
have to live with. Were we to turn around right this minute and start editing
posts without sufficient notice, we'd be as hypocritical as many people have
already accused us. We may very well change that in the near future, but as part
of a process, with ample notification and explanation.
We have rules. We're following the rules as best we can. We're also trying to
see what changes to make to solve the root issues brought up recently.
> I, however, do not believe my post was in violation of the ToU.
Your position on that is understood. Since it wasn't explicitly stated in the
ToS that "quoting an offending post" was itself a violation, I can see where
that would be considered a gray area, open to interpretation. Your
interpretation is that it's not a violation; but on the other hand, the
interpretation of LUGNET administration is that it is. A large portion of being
part of this site's administration is to make judgment calls on gray areas. This
call has been made, and it's not really a matter of he-said she-said anymore;
this particular point is no longer up for interpretation.
At issue beyond the post quoting and censorship issues are whether or not you
(and others) are willing to accept the authority of Larry and other admins in
making these judgment calls. I don't want to come off confrontational, as I do
see a lot of what you're trying to get at, but there's a root issue that really
needs to be crystal clear:
Do you (generic you, not just David) agree to abide by the administration's
interpretation of LUGNET Terms of Use and Service? (For the moment, let's not
get into the details of appeals processes and so on, which can be assumed to
exist.) In other words, do you acknowledge that LUGNET administrators have the
right and responsibility to enforce the Terms of Use document?
If the answer is "no" then there's a whole lot more to be done than just put a
word censor in place. Again, this may appear confrontational, but it's not meant
to be; we simply need to have a very clear understanding of what LUGNET members
expect from administrators, and vice versa.
- Kelly McKiernan
LUGNET Administrator
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote: ?<snip> (...) I won't speak for others, but I believe that the admins have the right and responsibilty to enforce the ToU. It is, after all, your house--should your ToU in your house require all people (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
