Subject:
|
Re: Suspend me as well (was Susp. of Chris and Terry)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 5 Mar 2005 03:27:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2588 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, C. L. GunningCook wrote:
| |
Lenny, from this post, it is clear to me that it is the contest that upset
you and factored into your decision of placing the indefinite suspension.
You ask me how (what Chris did) is this analogous to what is normally done
on Lugnet? Well to me its simple, its not analogous at all because the
contest was not held here.
|
The contest is unique - it was a public attempt to remove someone from
Lugnet. I feel that its flagrant-ness, plus Chris’s obmission that it was not
intended as a joke, move it from the ‘only on this site’ situation.
I feel that it contradicts this portion of the ToU:
1. (do not) Restrict or inhibit any other user from using the discussion
groups.
|
Oh My Goodness--so anything that happens on another website but pertains to
someone who posts on LUGNET can get you ‘timed out’ from LUGNET? Is this an
unstated-but-official policy? So if I were to post something in my blog at
Sparky’s Space about my issues with, say Calum, I could get timed out?
| |
| |
Firstly lets make it known, Chris is not the only one that
has said undesirable things elsewhere about Lugnet. Im not saying the
contest is right, and frankly, yes, it was mean spirited.
|
If said civily, I would have no problem and would accept it entirely.
|
It was said off LUGNET therefore shouldn’t play into any decision making process
for LUGNET.
| |
| |
only because I think it is detrimental to
punish any one that did not break any stated rules.
|
Here we get to un-easy ground. Who has broken rules and who has not is up
for grabs - it is the Admin’s job to make that determination, and we have. I
don’t believe that we need to justify our decisions to anyone except other
Admins.
|
If it’s uneasy ground, I say err on the side of not timeing out. Not to use an
example from the law or anything, but if there’s a shadow of doubt, one should
err on ‘the good side’. Further, if you want ‘the minions’ to understand, then
you better get used to the idea of ‘justifying the decisions’ in the open, for
all members to read. If we are all suppose to come to a better understanding so
these things have less chance of happening again, then transparancy is the
key--anything else will just disenfranchise the population.
| |
| |
I know you didn’t like it, but I also appreciate the fact that you know that
I was trying to make a serious point within the ToU without being
inflammatory. Loud and clear, it is not the admins, it is not the members,
it is the huge amounts of grey areas with in the ToU of which I am
protesting.
|
Thank you for the clarification.
| |
My plea for a veto is still on the table, I hope someone will take me up on
it.
|
I’m not going to get into specifics, but that isn’t exactly how the process
works. Right now I am trying to get this situation resolved.
|
Thanks for your endeavours.
| |
I never meant “indefinate” to mean “permanent” - rather, “suspended
currently, for how long to be decided upon later.” As I have mentioned
various places, it is always my hope, and the hope of all Admins, that
Chris and Terry can re-join Lugnet, and as quickly as possible.
| |
A reply to answer questions of an admin, and in hopes of
working together towards a common goal.
|
Thank you Janey.
-Lenny
|
Dave K
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
52 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
|
|
|
|
