Subject:
|
Re: Suspend me as well (was Susp. of Chris and Terry)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 5 Mar 2005 08:52:06 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
!!
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
2652 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.
|
Leonard,
The contest was created in a domain other than lugnet. You bring the topic to
lugnet. In doing so, you forced it to be a “not only on this site” situation.
Suddenly now the ToU applies to the contest. I still don’t get that. I’ll ask
again for a reasoned explanation on how that works. From your comment below I
understand that you feel can do what you want and the rest of us are irrelivent.
It certainly damages your credibility in my eyes.
You want people to be more reasonable and respectfull on lugnet, then please
respond to our questions in reasoned ways.
Could the fact that you brought news of the contest to lugnet be considered
baiting Chris? Some might think so, given your actions following it.
Also, your above comment indicates that Chris’ acknowledgement of the contest is
why you suspended him. This clearly contradicts this official post by you.
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=12396
where you state that Chris was suspended because of this post:
http://news.lugnet.com/org/ca/rtltoronto/?n=13540
Which is it then? The fact that Chris acknowledged the contest on lugnet, or
the prayer?
I feel you disrespect the ToU by claiming you are using it validly. The more
the ToU is applied fairly and equally the more it will be respected. The more
it is respected the less policing will need to be done. If it appears that the
admins are disprespecting the ToU by using it to implement personal vendettas,
the less the ToU is being disrespected, in the most damaging of ways.
I have not heard a consistant reasoned explantion for how Chris’ actions on
another site applies to lugnet. Without that, I feel this situation has the
appearance of disrepecting of the ToU by at least two admins.
| |
I
don’t believe that we need to justify our decisions to anyone except other
Admins.
|
If not, then you will taint lugnet with the feeling that things are not fairly
dealt with and that the admins can do what they want to whomever they don’t
like.
One thing I’ve heard consistantly from both sides was that Chris’ contest on
another domain was a vinditive action, and that it was wrong. I’ve not heard of
anyone who thought it was the right thing to do, including Chris.
Those of us who are objecting to your suspension of Chis are about the procedure
applied, *not* that Chris was *just* in what he did.
It is down to legalisms. I claim you that the prayer post is not legal grounds
for suspending Chris with respect to the ToU, if so, then there have to be at
least 50 other posts on lugnet in the last month that should cause suspensions.
I also claim that the ToU does not apply to things that happen outside the
lugnet domain.
Do you have reasoned arguments to counter my claims?
| |
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.
|
Indefinite is certainly different than 24 hours. Very different.
I would like to bring this post to your attention:
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=12405
In which the author makes this statement:
| |
Aren’t you, at one level, ashamed of being such a baby? Be a man. Ask for a >
cancel.
|
This is clearly insulting, degrading and baiting. Violation of ToU?
Followed by this statement:
| |
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.
|
Is calling the minority “immature” a neccessary part of the “reasoned”
statement, or is it name calling?
Now do you really believe that the post below is more aggegious than the post
above? It is very vague about what the wish is, and in fact leaves it up to the
reader to decide what the wish is. It is not explicitly insulting, degrading
and taunting like the comments above.
| |
(gets on knees)
Dear lord,
i know we dont talk lots, but if you are granting wishs today....
amen.
---------snip-----------
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=12291
“...I’m tired of it. I have better things to do with
my time, frankly, than babysit a bunch of people who are trying to push
my buttons for their own amusement.”
++Lar
--------------end--------------
Chris
|
In the above post Larry indicates that he thinks the button pushers are babies.
There were no reprocussions for Larry’s taunting and insulting verbiage in post
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=12405
Yet, Chris’ single post, by itself is deserving of an indefinite suspension? I
disagree.
I’ve not read all of Chris posts’ so I don’t know. Maybe some of his posts on
lugnet are deserving of an indefinite suspension, but the one cited above does
not appear to be worthy of such sanctioning, unless Larry’s post is also. Maybe
even collectvely Chris has enough posts to deserve a suspension, but the single
post you identified as your reason for indefinite suspension is far from
convincing for many of us.
If I had more time, I’m sure I could search and find a post by someone other
than Larry that would also easily be more clear cut than the prayer post by
Chris. I’m guessing I could find many.
I understand the pain and hurt these guys have inflicted on each other. I also
understand the anger they feel and how it has them behaving in ways the are
already regretting. I’m not asking that Larry get an indefinite suspension, I’m
asking for eqaul treatment. I also feel that you, Leonard, are leeting your
emotions cloud your judgement.
Larry needs to be judged by the same or higher rules and standards as Chris, or
the process is terribly flawed. I would expect that Admin’s conduct stay very
far away from ToU violation, rather that flirting with violations as I feel has
been happening with Larry (not including the post that did get him suspended).
The Admins’ behaviors and posts should be of the calibre that one would use as
role models. This has not been happening IMHO. I certainly would cut my son
off of posting on lugnet if he said some of the things Larry or Chris have said.
This is all very unfortunate. It is not easy for me to highlight Larry’s
behaviors in this way. I certainly get no pleasure in it. I do not mean to
Larry bash. Larry is a good man. I have a lot of respect for him. I
understand how his emotional state drove him to post some of the things he
posted. Chris is also in a very tough emotional spot right now, and it is also
very understandable. I have compassion for both parties, because it is clear
neither is using lugnet for which it is intended.
I’m asking for fair, impartial and equitable treatment *for all*, Admin, or not.
By comparing and contrasting these two cases I hope that I’ve identified my
belief that the treatment was not fair, impartial or equitable.
Kevin
|
|
Message has 3 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
|
|
|
|
