Subject:
|
Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 24 Apr 2005 20:05:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1672 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> The P&P and ToU
> already define everything as priveledges, but this means they can be taken away.
> Rights cannot be taken away.
I think that's accurate, yes.
> I should have the right to fair and just treatement by the LTT and the Admin
> team.
Playing devil's advocate, I would ask why you would expect that as a right? It's
not a right I think you would expect from most other people. For example, I
don't expect fair and just treatment from the person driving next to me; they
can (and do) behave any way they feel like. They SHOULD treat me fairly and
respect my presence on the road, but that doesn't always happen. I simply have
to trust that the other driver won't decide to kill me with their car.
I sincerely believe all members SHOULD be treated to fair and just treatment by
those in charge of LUGNET. But nobody can guarantee that, and I don't believe
it's realistic to expect it as an absolute right.
> Is that a priveledge? I don't think so. Permanent banning of me can be
> fair and just treatment. The right to fair and just treatement is not the same
> as being a priveledge for a member. Priveledge defines what a member can and
> cannot do, not how they are to be treated.
"Fair" and "just" are subjective terms. Since "fair" and "just" are a matter of
opinion, there's never any correct answer. That's why admin concepts need to be
based on a set of rules, rather than on a more general notion of fairness. I can
try to do what I see as fair, but I need to act on what's defined by the rules.
> Even though you don't agree about Larry's character, have you heard how many
> people do? We speak in hopes that we may be heard, risking the wrath of the
> very people we critique.
Yes, we are aware that some people have a problem with the way Larry expresses
himself.
> Does the ToU really apply member to member when one of the members is acting in
> the role of admin? I don't think so.
It's my interpretation that the ToU applies to all members at all times. In
fact, the P&P defines a tighter set of expectations for staff members than the
ToU. If a member has an issue with an admin's actions, for example, there are
certainly ways of expressing it without personal attacks that violate the ToU.
> We need a separate set of rules to define
> member to admin, and admin to member positing priveledges, because the situation
> is not at all the same.
More rules may not necessarily solve the core issue.
This is the "gray area" I was talking about, and is something that should be
addressed by LUGNET staff.
Regards,
Kelly McKiernan
LUGNET Administrator
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Context: LUGNET is not a democracy
|
| (...) I don't think that looking at only priveledges is a more accurate way to look at these issues. I think you only address part of the issue. The P&P and ToU already define everything as priveledges, but this means they can be taken away. Rights (...) (20 years ago, 24-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
26 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
