 | | Re: Lugnet: WAKE UP! —Timothy Gould
|
| | | (...) Thank you for this Suz (and Todd?). I realise that it must have been a hard decision to make but I feel it was the right one under the circumstances. Tim To Eric, When I first posted in response to you my only intention was to get you to admit (...) (19 years ago, 2-Apr-06, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.people, FTX) !
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Lugnet: WAKE UP! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) Me for one. It was deserved but I sincerely hope this is a timeout, to be lifted when Eric apologises and indicates he understands that he needs to comply with the ToS, and will do so, and not a permanent loss. Further, and just as (...) (19 years ago, 2-Apr-06, to lugnet.people, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Lugnet: WAKE UP! —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | (...) Hmmm, interesting to compare that view of Eric, who has shown a wilful disregard for the ToS, with (URL) your opinion of Jojo>. (...) That would involve someone deciding what "completely inappropriate" is. But as you brought it up, which posts (...) (19 years ago, 2-Apr-06, to lugnet.people, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet: WAKE UP! —Soren Roberts
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I'm fairly sure Eric might try to off himself if his posting privileges were permanently revoked. Dunno if that's the reason Larry is suggesting softer treatment for a greater offense, but it's something to consider. Soren (19 years ago, 2-Apr-06, to lugnet.people)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet: WAKE UP! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I see nothing inconsistent here. Eric should get an indefinite timeout until he requests cancels on the posts that clearly are over the line, acknowledges he erred and that the ToS does apply to him, and apologises for causing part of the (...) (19 years ago, 3-Apr-06, to lugnet.people) !
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet: WAKE UP! —Timothy Gould
|
| | | | | | | | --SNIP-- (...) As I mentioned the first response to Eric, he has in fact been (URL) told before>. Tim --SNIP-- (19 years ago, 3-Apr-06, to lugnet.people, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet: WAKE UP! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) John's not an admin. A PERMANENT ban would still be shotgun against puppy without prior warning, IMHO. A temporary ban is what apparently has been imposed though. (wasn't very clear at first, still isn't very clear although it is somewhat (...) (19 years ago, 3-Apr-06, to lugnet.people, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet: WAKE UP! —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Which "certain others"? ROSCO (19 years ago, 3-Apr-06, to lugnet.people, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Warnings( was: WAKE UP!) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Actually, that raises another question. Should admins disregard advice/warnings given by others (non-admins and admins in non-admin role) in making decisions about timeouts/bans? Seems to me they should count for something, though exactly how (...) (19 years ago, 3-Apr-06, to lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet: WAKE UP! —Allister McLaren
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Nevertheless, if you read the rest of the thread, Eric did make a (URL) commitment of sorts> not to do it again. So he either willfully disregarded that, or simply forgot, when posting this latest auction. Either one doesn't fill me with any (...) (19 years ago, 4-Apr-06, to lugnet.people, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Lugnet: WAKE UP! —Marco Tagliaferri
|
| | | | | | (...) I'd absolutely sign this. The way of baiting on Eric (done by some members) had nothing to do with a discussion on ToS violation. IMHO this is as despicable as the ToS violation. Might be it is a ToS violation itself. Sincerely Marco (19 years ago, 6-Apr-06, to lugnet.people, FTX) !!
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet: WAKE UP! —Jordan Bradford
|
| | | | | | (...) Is there a way to moderate LUGNET discussions and lock threads? It's based on USENET, right? That means no. Most community forums have pretty good moderation systems where threads get locked once they get off topic or become flame wars. I'd (...) (19 years ago, 6-Apr-06, to lugnet.people, FTX) !
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet: WAKE UP! —Thomas Main
|
| | | | | | (...) Well, I hope LUGNET doesn't start locking threads. I post sometimes on BZPower and it seems that my threads get locked a lot and I am never sure exactly why. It's happened enough times to make me not want to post there anymore - I guess I just (...) (19 years ago, 6-Apr-06, to lugnet.people, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet: WAKE UP! —Mark Papenfuss
|
| | | | | | (...) When a thread is locked on BZP it is policy to say why - either the staff member posts why, or quotes somebody who already said it. Are you saying you were not told why, or you did not understand why? There is a pretty big difference between (...) (19 years ago, 6-Apr-06, to lugnet.people, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet: WAKE UP! —Andrew Bulthaupt
|
| | | | | | | (...) Additionally, if you ever have a problem with something you see on BZPower, please contact a staff member with your question. As long as you are polite and make your concern understandable, we will be more than willing to help you or pass your (...) (19 years ago, 6-Apr-06, to lugnet.people, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet: WAKE UP! —Thomas Main
|
| | | | | | | | In lugnet.people, Andrew Bulthaupt wrote: <snip> (...) Thanks for the advice. I just want to make it clear that I have never "screamed or complained" about anything on BZPower. I don't feel a warm welcome there, but that it probably more based on my (...) (19 years ago, 7-Apr-06, to lugnet.people, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet: WAKE UP! —Thomas Main
|
| | | | | | (...) It is probably a case of me not understanding. I am an infrequent poster. When I do post, it is easy for me to confuse whether something should be posted in storylines & theories or whether it is better placed in the books forum, or whether it (...) (19 years ago, 7-Apr-06, to lugnet.people, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Warnings( was: WAKE UP!) —Kelly McKiernan
|
| | | | | (...) In my experience, mod/admin decisions should be made based on official warnings rather than peer recommendations, which may be biased or incomplete. For instance, having 5 people say "Don't do that" about something is not as effective as a (...) (19 years ago, 3-Apr-06, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Bloviate (was Re: Warnings( was: WAKE UP!)) —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote: <snip> (...) There are a few more things that warnings, proper adminship and the like are contingent on-- That the admins are not a bunch of bloviating blowhards (that leaves me out of the admin (...) (19 years ago, 3-Apr-06, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Bloviate —Kelly McKiernan
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) I agree, admins that can't be trusted or don't behave for the good of their community are problematic. I belong to at least one message board (not LEGO-related) where a good deal of the above applies. I don't post there often. But if you're (...) (19 years ago, 3-Apr-06, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Bloviate (was Re: Warnings( was: WAKE UP!)) —Jake McKee
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Personally, I don't think that's fair. That's the same thing as telling people who disagree with a governmental policy in a certain country to like it or leave it. That doesn't benefit anyone - things only get better when people standup and (...) (19 years ago, 4-Apr-06, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Bloviate (was Re: Warnings( was: WAKE UP!)) —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) That's not quite a good analogy. A government is imposed upon you. LUGNET is a free service that you use (yes, I know there are memberships, but they're structured more like donations). It's sort of like complaining about, say, Google or (...) (19 years ago, 4-Apr-06, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Bloviate (was Re: Warnings( was: WAKE UP!)) —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Hi Jake! I didn't make the point as clear as maybe I should have. I'll try to keep it concise-- Constructive criticism = good Example-- "Maybe we should think about enabling a new message interface so we can put pictures and stuff in our (...) (19 years ago, 4-Apr-06, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Bloviate (was Re: Warnings( was: WAKE UP!)) — Suzanne Rich Green
|
| | | | | | | | [snip] David, you rock. I admit it: I'm a wuss. I need handholding to do a job I don't like. And over the years it was often YOUR posts and private mails that got printed out and (literally) posted on my refridgerator to get me through the more (...) (19 years ago, 4-Apr-06, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Bloviate (was Re: Warnings( was: WAKE UP!)) —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I've been there. If I may expound a little-- Having about 30 cubs running around your ankles at a cub camp on a weekend when it's rained the entire time and the kids are miserable, and you get no sleep 'cause you have to chase down the (...) (19 years ago, 4-Apr-06, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Bloviate (was Re: Warnings( was: WAKE UP!)) —Chris Magno
|
| | | | | | | | David Koudys wrote: (snip) (...) and you get no sleep (...) (snip) (...) its ALWAYS a good time for PYRO!!! :) Chris www.ThePyroGuys.com (19 years ago, 4-Apr-06, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Warnings( was: WAKE UP!) — Suzanne Rich Green
|
| | | | | | | (...) Yes. When it comes to mechanics, I see this as the only way. It simplifies the process, avoids potential chaos and builds respect for the authority. But that doesn't mean the admin need not be influenced by, say, an outcry from the people. (...) (19 years ago, 4-Apr-06, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Warnings( was: WAKE UP!) — Suzanne Rich Green
|
| | | | | | (...) Another question: Assumming the rules are stated and understood by all, and "sentences" are fairly standardized, need non-admins be informed of the duration of something like a time-out? I worry about this because I don't want to see people (...) (19 years ago, 4-Apr-06, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Warnings( was: WAKE UP!) —Leonard Hoffman
|
| | | | | | (...) I do indeed understand. Another issue, especially with the long absense of Adminship, is to restore the feeling that there is law and order. That happens with people seeing consequences. If Eric had just suddenly stopped posting, there would (...) (19 years ago, 4-Apr-06, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Warnings —David Eaton
|
| | | | | (...) My expectation is that they're considered, but not as meaningful as admin warnings. If Howard was warned 50 times by other members, and once by an admin, but Harold was only ever warned once by an admin for the same violations; it seems that (...) (19 years ago, 3-Apr-06, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Warnings( was: WAKE UP!) — Suzanne Rich Green
|
| | | | (...) This is a difficult question to answer in specifics. I'm tempted to re-word your question from, "Should admins disregard.." to, "Should admins consider.." which makes it an easy: "Yes." LUGNET users' voices are always counting for something, (...) (19 years ago, 4-Apr-06, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| | | | |
