Subject:
|
Re: Please help keep Tony K on LUGNET...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Aug 1999 02:14:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
239 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> writes:
> Tony Kilaras wrote:
> > You chose the wrong tactic for this one buddy. If you e-mailed me about
> > it, even though I disagree about censorhsip, I would have gladly done
> > you the favor since this is your place.
Tony,
I don't understand. Could you explain to me why you should have been
e-mailed about it? Do you mean to say that you weren't aware that you
weren't supposed to talk with a potty mouth here? Or do you not consider
"holy sh**" to be potty language?
If it's the latter case, then I apologize for coming on so strong. I came
on strong because I assumed that you were either trying to see how much you
could get away with, or that you hadn't actually read and understood the
Terms of Use when you'd stated that you had. (But if either of those
assumptions is correct, then I certainly can't offer any apology.)
The reason I always stood to up help defend your right to use obsceneties in
RTL years ago is because RTL doesn't have conditions on its use. But for
better or for worse, this place is a little different. If we lose you
because you can't stand the thought of posting messages here without the use
of obsceneties, then I'm sorry to see you leave, but I'd rather that you
leave and we keep the no-obsceneties rule here than amending the no-
obsceneties rule just to keep you happy. (Does that make any sense?) It's
one of those "good of the many outweighs the good of the one" things. Of
course, I'd *most* rather see you stop using obsceneties and *stay*, but
that's your decision.
Anyway, if you could re-read the Terms of Use to refresh your memory, that
would be great.
As far as public vs. private messages, please read below...
> You've got a point there. Public praise, private criticism. (some good
> advice that I ought to take myself sometimes (hi Mike P)....)
Larry,
Wouldn't you agree that while the public praise, private criticism formula
is a workable approach for small teams of like-minded individuals and FTF
groups, it's not really a workable approach for online forums with archives?
That is, while private criticism may work to put an end to transgressions
(for lack of a better word) in particular cases, how does private criticism
help clean up the messes after the fact? -- for example an auction update to
a non-auction group? In the past, only a very small percentage of private
criticisms have resulted in someone voluntarily posting a follow-up to their
own message pointing out their transgression. And note that simply
cancelling an article doesn't work -- because the article may already have
found its way into someone's newsreader.
So (for example) an auction update posted to a non-auction group *can't* be
left as-is. It *must* be followed-up with a message of some sort pointing
out that auction announcements/updates belong only in the .market.auction
group. If that isn't pointed out swiftly in each case, then people will
gradually conclude that it's OK, will they not?
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Please help keep Tony K on LUGNET...
|
| Todd Lehman wrote in message <37a8e604.287243072@...et.com>... (...) No. (...) I suppose it could be construed as such by most people, yes. (...) No. Why would I do that? (...) No I read them, but I remember them vaguely. (...) in (...) use (...) I (...) (25 years ago, 6-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Please help keep Tony K on LUGNET...
|
| Sticking my oar into the middle of someone else's fight... Tony, I'd hate to see you not be here, and I wish you'd post here MORE, rather than less. Your perspective on some stuff is refreshing and a good contrast to some of the TLG cheerleading (...) (25 years ago, 5-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
5 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
|
|
|
|
