Subject:
|
Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 4 Mar 2005 02:36:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
632 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> (this is a repost with some inappropriate language and phrasing removed)
>
> 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.
>
> Further, you cannot claim that you did not know you were in violation because
> your post pretty clearly shows you do know it.
>
> Therefore, were it up to me and me alone, all else under the present system as
> it stands now (flawed as it may be, it nevertheless **is** the system as it
> stands now) you would be on indefinite timeout till a cancel request came in,
> plus some definite period tacked on as a measure to remind you that you cannot
> flout the rules, even to make a point. The size of the definite timeout would,
> in my view, depend on your level of intransigence and the number of times we had
> to remind you that the rules apply to you before you agreed that they did. This
> is, I think, at least the 3rd or 4th reminder.
Take a deep breath. Go for a walk.
>
> We do not have to send warning notes or cancel requests if we have reason to
> believe the poster knows better.
>
> You know better. I know you know better, and you know you know better. Aren't
> you, at one level, ashamed of being such a baby? Be a man. Ask for a cancel.
I certainly find this paragraph combative. It certainly is name calling, and
questioning of manhood.
>
> Agitate for changes in the rules if you like (and when you do so in a reasoned
> manner we are very likely to listen to you because you have a very solid head on
> your shoulders) but do not violate them while you do so.
>
> This isn't 1965, you are not Dr. King and we're not talking about oppresssion
> here, we are talking about adherence to rules that you already explicitly agreed
> to adhere to, on a private site, and one designed to talk about toys, no less.
> This is not some big civil rights thing where civil disobedience is useful or
> noble or admirable.
In some ways it is similar.
>
> JoJo, especially, knows better as well. He has ALREADY been warned that he
> cannot quote posters the way he's doing, and in my view, he's pushing buttons to
> see what happens. At this point, were it me, I'd ban him without any
> reinstatement opportunity at all, because he's demonstrated a wilful disregard
> for the ToS.
>
> Give me a break. It's all very tiresome.
You have my permission to take a break. In fact I recommend it.
>
> We admins are trying to be as light about this as we can in order to make the no
> censorship model work, we ask and cajole and plead, but as someone pointed out
> in response to Kelly, it means that we have to go all the way around the barn 5
> times where on other sites the trip is 2 steps.
Larry, from where I'm sitting this letter and many that precede it are *far*
from light.
>
> What a waste.
>
> I've half a mind to press for dumping the no censorship tradition and move to a
> model like everyone else uses... filters, threadlocking, moderation after the
> fact, cancellation by admins without respecting the poster's desires in the
> matter and the whole nine yards. LUGNET maybe has outgrown the noble "we're all
> friends here, peer pressure will do the trick" experiment of 6 years ago.
The situation certainly is pressurised.
>
> Someone explain to me why a no censorship policy is better than that alernative,
> given that there is a minority of immature users here that seems bound and
> determined to flout the ToS and to cause uproars like this one every so often.
I beleive this is name calling too.
>
> Someone explain to me why at the premier destination for this hobby, one where
> kids do come to because they're excited about the product and the creations, and
> one where reputations of the entire community are made or broken by what the
> mundanes first see when they start reading... explain how it's a good thing that
> some blowhard can say whatever swear word he wants whenever he wants and then
> spout off about his RIGHTS being trampled in such a way that it gets to be the
> top story?
More name calling?
>
> Give me a break. What a turnoff.
From multiple directions.
>
> You 11 people that spotlighted that first post... shame on you. You're not the
> kind of fans I want to help. Not at all.
Please note that no other admins are being singled out. Is it a fluke? Have
you considered that you might be continuing the fight but with an admin's hat
on? People being chastised by admins for voicing their opinion about a specific
admin, sounds pretty oppressive to me. Want to change power positions?
Continue to be a man and take the higher road. Sit down cool off and the the
other admins handle this situation. You have a conflict of interest here. Do
you see it? You and I have talked about this kind of thing in the past. Better
to release yourself from it and get some peace.
In my book what Chris did was very wrong, but he is not the only one behaving
badly.
From an outside perspective it looks to me like you are trying provoke more
fighting (not that you are alone mind you.) Is it so you get others so worked
up that you can "revoke their posting privaledges for an indefinite period of
time?"
>
> ++Lar (not speaking officially, not in the slightest)
If you return to a respectful tone I'm sure more people will listen to you. I
know I will listen to you more.
Kevin
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (this is a repost with some inappropriate language and phrasing removed) (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 4-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
|
|
|
|
