Subject:
|
Re: Warnings( was: WAKE UP!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Apr 2006 20:33:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5933 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.people, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.people, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.people, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
--SNIP--
| |
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 ruckus... plus some (fairly sizable in his case)
definite amount as a reminder that he should not trifle. I would not
support a permanent irrevocable ban for Eric, at this time, because in the
last year, at least, he has not been previously warned. He should have
been, but he wasn’t.
|
As I mentioned the first response to Eric, he has in fact been
told before.
|
John’s not an admin. A PERMANENT ban would still be shotgun against puppy
without prior warning, IMHO.
|
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 they should be taken into account is not an
easy question to answer.
ROSCO
|
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 site admin saying the same thing, especially when the admin can
cite reasons why they shouldn’t, or state what the consequences of repeated
infranctions would be. In many cases, the admin could point to a particularly
well-written statement from another member and say, “that’s why,” and it would
be official at that point, but not before. That also allows the admin to make
decisions about the entire thread, including warning/suspending other members
who may have also stepped over the line, regardless of who or what they were
arguing for or about.
This assumes a couple of things that may not be relevant on LUGNET at this time:
one, that members acquiesce to admin authority; and two, that there is proactive
admin presence and activity.
Kelly
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Bloviate (was Re: Warnings( was: WAKE UP!))
|
| 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: Warnings( was: WAKE UP!)
|
| (...) 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!)
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lugnet: WAKE UP!
|
| (...) 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) !
|
42 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
|
|
|
|
