Subject:
|
Re: Suspend me as well
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 6 Mar 2005 12:28:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2264 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, C. L. GunningCook wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
|
| |
| |
I have a difficult time understanding what your protest is about -
that is, if it isn’t directed at me. I was a part of every major decision
the Lugnet Admins have made over the past few months.
|
Lenny I have no protest with the admins. My protest is with the process of
suspensions. Apparently I am not alone in feeling that Chris’ suspension was
a knee jerk reaction. He was not asked to remove his posts yet when others
that have sworn they have been given that option. The process then becomes
confusing, to me, a prayer must fall somewhere under breaking the profanity
rules. I know why you felt it was needed to be done, but anyone familiar
with the history between the two of them knows that they both dropped the
gloves a long time ago. Of the admins I talked to, none was familiar with
the past transgressions between them. Also since this suspension and my
request of a suspension involved Larry directly, I feel it truly is a
conflict of interest and it would only be fair that he would not have been
included in those decisions.
My plea for a veto is still on the table, I hope someone will take me up on
it.
|
Although not granted an actual suspension due to my protest I have limited my
postings to .admin and have imposed a self suspension for all other groups on
Lugnet, during this time I have greatly considered the intent of my actions.
I acknowledged that my protest caused some of the admins to feel transgressed by
my act of civil disobedience which implies that discussions are not being
productive and resistance is the only operant.
I agree that asking for a veto, while I was not intentionally trying to
circumvent any process in motion, could be considered as an incumbrance to the
established procedure of suspensions.
When applying for membership I agreed to the ToU. I still agree with it today,
although often I wonder if I really truly understand it or if some other members
do for that matter. I see two, fatal to Lugnet, flaws with it. The ToU is
complicated in style, manner and enforcement because it contains wording that is
subject to too many interpretations. The official ToU (that is the one you must
agree to at registration), is not the ToU that is actually being enforced.
Granted, admins have posted many times that additional rules, regulations, or
guidelines made over time are also part of the ToU that will be enforced. These
other regulations are sometimes difficult to find because they are randomly
spread throughout Lugnet posts. I am not at all convinced that this is a fair
way of representing a ToU but I do recognise this is something that the admin
group is working on correcting.
At this time, I see two choices. Vote with my feet, or opt to stay and defend my
positions in a more productive way. I choose to stay and defend the stand that
the ToU is flawed and due to various interpretations of it, especially when
applied to bans, suspensions, timeouts and requested cancellations of posts.
This interpretation sends mixed messages and reads as favouritism or at the
least, inconsistencies, which causes dissension in the ranks.
Having said that, I am pleased that the recent suspensions have been lifted and
that while I hoped the events would have played out much differently, there is
no longer any point of me standing on the picket line so I ask that my
suspension request be considered annulled. I apologise if my actions were
considered histrionic or hampered the process to any degree. I will commit to
work actively to help in the process improving these concerns if that is at all
desired.
Thank you,
Sincerely Janey “Red Brick”
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Suspend me as well (was Susp. of Chris and Terry)
|
| (...) Okay, I was holding off replying, but the night is getting short, so I am going to try to explain this to the best of my ability... Sorry it's a "novel". First of all, I can see many points of views/sides to this story. 4 that I will touch on, (...) (19 years ago, 5-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX) !
|
52 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
