Subject:
|
Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Apr 2005 21:12:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2386 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> There's been discussion among the admin staff about off-site information with
> regard to LUGNET members. In essense, I think we all agree that what happens
> off LUGNET, stays off LUGNET.
I think this is a fantastic discussion-- one that we started on the list, but
(as I've said on the list) I *REALLY* want admin feedback like this from admins
on a continual basis. Seriously, this is the most effectual I've felt yet about
the P&P.
> But we don't feel comfortable making that an absolute because of the (remote)
> potential that there may actually be something that happens elsewhere which
> could affect LUGNET. Here's an (unlikely but possible) example... say
> somebody on LUGNET advertises an event somewhere and encourages kids to
> attend. Then say that someone is arrested and charged with something
> particularly heinous, like making child pornography. If that became known to
> the admin staff, would we still want to allow that person to solicit
> attendance of children at an event they were responsible for putting on?
> Personally, I would not want to feel shackled to an absolute ban of
> considering offsite action on the off-chance it was necessary in the future.
I'm not sure I see the need to revoke this hypothetical person's posting rights.
Certainly Lugnet would not want to create a new link on the main page about how
great this guy's new event would be. And sure, you don't want Lugnet to sponsor
it in any way. But why revoke the user's posting privilages? Is a prerequisite
to posting on Lugnet that you don't have an arrest record, or aren't a
registered sex offender? My stance is that removal of posting rights is based
ONLY on whether or not the posting user has abused that right.
Instead, I would argue (as I have on the list) that in certain extreme
circumstances (the most common probably being copyright infringement, but
anything where its legally reprehensible to post certain information), admins
may cancel posts or remove site content without consent of the posting user.
Hence, if this guy was using Lugnet to solicit another of these said events,
administration could cancel the post and tell him not to post it again,
explaining why.
Then, if he decides to RE-post the information he can get timeoutted or banned,
because he abused his posting rights by going against what the administration
told him NOT to post.
The only exception I can think of is if Lugnet received a court order to revoke
a user's posting ability. THEN, I'd advocate doing so without the user
necessarily abusing their posting rights.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
| (...) That was my paraphrasing of the original information I saw about the purpose for the committee, I apologize for not being specific. (...) I'm assuming the "you" is directed at the LTT, and not me personally, so I'll respond as such. The (...) (20 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
90 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
