Subject:
|
Re: wish's - Contest canceled
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:16:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1463 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Frank Filz wrote:
> Dave Schuler wrote:
> > With due respect, what recourse do we have if an admin is found to be
> > grossly unsatisfactory in some way? I'm not saying that any of them
> > are, but what if it should occur? Does the average LUGNET member
> > just sit around waiting for that admin to leave?
**snip**
> Something to consider also - the admin team is a group of people, and we
> have already set a policy (and I thought we publicised it) that it takes
> several admins to reccomend a timeout (and in fact a single admin can veto).
>
> And believe me, if an admin really is being abusive, I will be one of the
> first to call for his removal.
Yeah, I thought the guidelines might have been spelled-out already but didn't
know where. Now that I think of it, I remember that Larry answered my earlier
question about timeout policy.
But now that you mention it, I have a probelm with that no-good Tim Courtney.
Try as I might, he just won't open his mind to MegaBloks. I think he has
something personal against me... 8^)
> That's why I've asked everyone to think on the implications of what has
> happened.
Fair enough--thanks for the clarification.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: wish's - Contest canceled
|
| (...) Respectfull communication. Which has not been happening here. I think Todd has been pretty clear for quite some time what the policy on language is. Sure, it isn't spelled out (and the admin team has recognized that the TOU DO need updating), (...) (19 years ago, 3-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
47 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
