| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Ross Crawford wrote:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> Sorry, that was rhetoric. LUGNET is not infinite so there never has been an
> "endless" one. But there have been lots of interminable ones, don't you agree?
I think that is irrelevant here so I will not agree or disagree.
> > > > I agree debate is not going to change the initial decision, but it CAN point out
> > > > fallacies in the decision process that could lead ANOTHER decision that (at
> > > > least partially) undoes the initial decision, and hopefully reduces the chance
> > > > of a similar incorrect decisions in the future.
> > >
> > > Assuming it was an incorrect decision, that is.
> >
> > Of course.
> >
> > > I'm not aware of any reviewing decisions (decisions, not implementations of
> > > them, we have already acknowledged some issues with one specific one) that have
> > > been incorrect, since I started being involved in making them. Are you?
> >
> > OK, I'm not groking what you mean here. Please explain using an example (maybe
> > the specific one you mention above) the exact difference between the reviewing
> > decision and the implementation.
>
> For a "made up" example
>
> The decision would be "person A gets a timeout of 48 hours for reason X, and the
> standard notice and group conditions apply" and the implementation was:
>
> the implementation would be
>
> post 1 - Person A gets a timeout indefinitely for reason Y
> post 2 - No, we meant a 48 hour timeout, not indefinitely, we were in a hurry
> post 3 - We forgot to mail person A
> post 4 - Actually we meant reason X, not Y (although Y is, in this extreme case,
> a justifiable reason despite our policy that normally we don't care about Y type
> events, this particular Y is an "incite to riot")
> post 5 - the mail wasn't the standard boilerplate so, oops...
> etc.
>
> The decision that 48 hours was the needed timeout for reason X wasn't wrong.
>
> Just the implementation.
That's all fine, given that the ToU says "reason X will result in a timeout of
48 hours". However, I doubt the ToU will ever cover every possible reason for
timeout, and a corresponding duration. There will be timeouts given which are
not covered *specifically* by the ToU, and people do not agree with, there must
be seen to be an avenue for people to give their opinion and have it considered.
> > BTW, just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean you shouldn't allow for
> > it in the policy document. If there's been an implementation with issues, isn't
> > it just as likely a reviewing decision could have issues?
>
> Not sure it's "just as likely", no.
Semantics, how about I change "just as likely" to "possible"?
> > > Does that assurance need to be given every time? Doesn't that show a lack of
> > > trust, to require that assurance?
> >
> > I think it does. If there was total trust, we wouldn't require a policy
> > document.
>
> And THAT'S the crux of why LUGNET is at least partly broken. The admins don't
> trust (some of) the users and (some of) the users (not necessarily the same
> ones) don't trust the admins.
OK let me put it another way, if it's worth creating a P&P doc, it's worth
assuring the users they will be listened to.
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
45 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
|
|
|
|
