Subject:
|
Re: Suspend me as well (was Susp. of Chris and Terry)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 5 Mar 2005 08:40:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2677 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
And yet isn’t that exactly what you have been trying to do these past few
days?
|
I’ve been trying to help everyone understand. But you’re right - I shouldn’t
have been doing that. I made the decision, with other Admins, and I am
comfortable with it. As I have stated several times, I believe Chris broke
the ToU, and whether you agree with me is immaterial.
|
Now that’s something different again. That means the ToU mean diddly squat, all
that matters is the Admins’ interpretation of them. So even if I agree to the
ToU, I can still be suspended on the grounds that I broke the ToU, if the Admins
all agree that I did, even if they’re the only ones that see any violation.
I wish you guys would just admit Chris’ suspension was due to him breaking the
*spirit* of the ToU, and be done with it. If people KNOW they can be suspended
for that, then they have more information to make a meaningful decision.
Continuing to cite rules which he obviously didn’t break is just confusing
everyone.
ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
52 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
