|
|
 | | 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)
| | | | | 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)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| Bingo! This one didn't seem to raise any eyebrows at all, but drop an f-bomb and you're banned until you recant. The enforcement mechanism obviously needs some tweaking : ) Like David K. said instituting a filter is about as even handed as we can (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| Bye. Just remeber, the loss is entirely yours. I'm just curious, do you have a driver's licence? If so, when you got it, you agreed to obey all of the traffic laws, including the speed limit. So, if you get caught for speeding, are you going to stop (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | 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)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Well, the relevant part from (URL) is this: "His attempt to run around the suspension by posting exclusively in admin.general..." Len identifies Richard's choice to post exclusively in admin.general (which he was explicitly required to do) as (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) One message from Larry is "all hell"? Tempest/teapot. Mountain/molehill. Though AFTER your post, a pale rider on a pale horse trotted by followed by with his entourage, which I suppose qualifies. :-) (...) I must say that I regard the (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | 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)
| | | | | 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)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Well, I was responding to the phrasing in (URL) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
|
