| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Elsewhere he can, subject to the rules and regulations, if any, of whatever
> place he does so. Not here. Here he is subject to the ToS like everyone else.
> So, to say that "he can do whatever he wants" is false, unless you add the
> codicil, "and face the consequences, if any".
I don't see him posting this contest here. He posted on "JLUG". There's a
difference.
> I am not among those that say that what happens elsewhere has bearing on what
> actions are taken here. But the initial post in this thread, without regard to
> actions or statements anywhere else, is in my judgement, and that of others,
> egregious baiting and is in violation of the ToS.
First, they're your words in that post. It's obvious Chris doesn't like you,
but I wouldn't call that baiting by any means. If you didn't want to have your
words commented on, you shouldn't have typed them. No different than when any
random poster says "I'm sick of Lugnet! I'm leaving", a billion people say "Good
riddance. You're a dork. Go ahead."
The only difference is that Chris is commenting on YOU, an admin. And you're angry at him, so you're going to ban him or time him out or whatever you folks do. You're going to smack him down, gussy it all up in administrative talk and legislative doublespeak, and get your retribution.
Who knows? Maybe I'll get banned next. Or DaveK. Or someone else!
This is what Chris, in his admittedly poor ways of doing so, is pointing out:
With the current admin structure, nothing is done in open view, and the set of
administrators may very well act on whim, without any recourse. It's all a
bunch of backroom shadowy negotiations by an arbitrarly selected group of
people. Now, one might say this is par for the course of any other private
website, this isn't government or even a PTA meeting. I'm sure most enthusiast
websites are run by irrational nutjobs who want to play God in their otherwise
inconsequential lives. Stranegly enough, that's what Chris and I do all the
time here in rtlToronto. :)
The difference here is that you guys are making it out on the premise it's
better for the "community", pretending everyone's going to be just and fair,
when in fact, you should just come out and acknowledge, we're here to run the
show, wear the pants and set the rules.
Stop beating around the bush guys. If you don't want people to swear, put it in a rule, and let it be. Ban the guy who swears. Fine. Just don't call it a timeout, or a self censorship or whatever. Want to ban someone because they're being a prick, stupid, or nasty? Ban them, and say, "We're doing this because this guy is a dork" or "He's pissing me off". Don't pretend you're some sort of respected international diplomat debating at the United Nations.
> evidence of any fundamental agreement with that notion, that the rules apply to
> everyone, and that they agree to abide, at least from some people that are
> regular users of rtlT.
I think in general, we've tried to stay pretty much on the general course.
People have done some stupid stuff here and there, but overall, I think you'll
find us to be somewhat on track.
> You should vote with your feet, then. I seriously mean that, and not in an
> unfriendly way. If you (or some of your members) cannot or will not abide, and
> cannot or will not work WITHIN the system for change, WHILE abiding, you should
> seek another venue, one more condusive to how you want to do things. That's not
> a slam, it's honest advice. There are many venues now, and more all the time.
> LUGNET is not for everyone, in particular it is not for those that cannot or
> will not abide.
So here's the problem again: Are you talking with your Admin hat on or off?
Are these threats or guidelines? Where's my process of arbitration?
> > What do you want us to do? This is Chris' attempt at regime change.
> > Offer us a better solution if you don't think this one is appropriate.
>
> If you seriously think this is the best solution you could come up with to
> working for change, I am pretty much at a loss. A better solution than publicly
> ridiculing someone because they showed frustration? You really are unable to
> think of one? I pity you.
Well, let's see. Someone thinks someone on the admin team is a dork and
shouldn't be in charge of Lugnet. What is our recourse? There's no formal
election or nomination to be an admin, no way of contacting an ombudsman or
arbitrating party, no way to even know what goes on in the minds of these
"admins".
Really all we have is to either leave or deal.
In all honesty, I've spent several weeks talking to Chris about this issue now, and I didn't really think this was an important issue. I figured Chris set up a block on his shoulder and wanted to pick a fight with you. I told him to cool it off, and that it was a stupid fight to pick. We should wait it out, and be participants, not combatants. It was always my estimation that we were on a private website and we shouldn't be expecting any "rights".
But my problem with this now, is that you want to go out there with personal
vendettas and call it "playing within the rules". Covering it up with false
premises.
Go set up a "Get Chris Banned" or "Let's ditch rtlToronto" contest and offer up
a Metroliner. But don't sit on your high horse while doing it, we see through
you perfectly clear up here.
Calum
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: wish's
|
| (...) Elsewhere he can, subject to the rules and regulations, if any, of whatever place he does so. Not here. Here he is subject to the ToS like everyone else. So, to say that "he can do whatever he wants" is false, unless you add the codicil, "and (...) (20 years ago, 3-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
