|
|
 | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| OK, maybe we really do need two different discussions to happen, but the two are inextricably intertwined. Filters would catch the slips and that'd be a Good Thing(TM). Admins then have to deal with the bad eggs who intentionally try to beat the (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| (...) It is a sad fact that people in the Western world are getting more and more stressed out, and the result is often bickering and whining in all kinds of situations which used to be a source for relaxation, all smiles and warm, fuzzy feelings. (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| The problem is that we're not dealing with momentary issues where someone mistypes or whatnot. Willy went out of his way to use a cuss, and then went out of his way to obfuscate the Admin's process of dealing with his cuss. A filter won't deal with (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| (...) Sadly the children tend to be the ones using the most unacceptable vernacular. (...) Yeah.. sure let the fox guard the henhouse. (...) As me Pappy used to say.. Sic' Em Boys! (...) I think we should give Lar a large Lego Bat to enforce the ToU (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | 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)
| | | | | 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)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, Marc Nelson, Jr. wrote: <snip> (...) I'm more than willing to give Larry the benefit--when passions are high, things get said in 'the heat of the moment'. That said, the consistant way in which the issue is overlooked and in (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) What a class act... I suppose the Admins will tell us that Larry's post doesn't technically violate the new (URL) posting guidelines>: Repeated abusive language or personal attacks, i.e. bringing more heat than light to a discussion... also (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX) !!
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, Ken Dowd wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> As a Christian, I used to 'take offense' to OMG. But over the last decade, I write (and say), "Oh My Goodness!" so that's how I choose to read OMG now. You'd have to do something pretty (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Interesting point - the difference between profanities and vulgarities. Here on Lugnet mild instances of taking God's name in vain occur seemingly without making a blip on the radar. But, personally, I find a post like, "OMG! That MOC is (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
|
