 | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
How about a 1 post per day limit to the cad.* heirarchy as a probationary condition? This would force Jonathan to more carefully consider what he posts, and would give everyone a break from the deluge of sometimes rude or irritating posts. Is this (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
I like this idea, but maybe two messages, one in the morning one in the evening. This way it makes it easier, because you can reply to things that came in during the night, and then to things that came in during the day. I think we ought to hold off (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) Technically feasable: yes. Worth the time to implement: not IMO. --Todd (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) posts, (...) irritating (...) I agree with VanZwieten (great AWing BTW) some kind of posting cap instead of a complete ban, at least gives him the opportunity to show a willingness at making better posts. -Ty (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
That sounds like a good idea because: 1) Jonathan is Jonathan. No matter how hard he tries, he will not be able to function in a mature manner in LUGNET because *HE IS IMMATURE* That's no crime, he's just young. And a little dense. But who among us (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
I don't read most of the newsgroups that have complained, and so I don't feel it is my place to vote in the matter. However, as a suggestion, perhaps it would be more feasible to ban him from Lugnet and then see if he _VOLUNTARILY_ cleans up his (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) Correct on all above. (Tim grovels at the feet of the great Lar) :P (...) Good point. Though I fully support the current vote, it appears that either way his actions will continue to back himself further into a corner. Personally his actions (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) How about we give Todd a break? Kick him (JW) out or don't - don't ask Todd to spend his very valuable time hacking into his code to come up with something like this. I'm sure Todd COULD do it, but boy, the things he could be doing instead - (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) He's said he would change before, in other ways, and hasn't. He apologized for his rudeness and said he wouldn't do it anymore a few days ago, then spent the last two days trying to defend a rude message he sent to Tore by arguing that since (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) On the other hand, the other day, I saw Jonathan ask a reasonable question in a polite way. Someone else had already answered, but given the politeness of the question, I was willing to add a comment to the answer already given. I think the (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) Thanks for noticing, and thanks for the braces, which arrived today. I MEANT to leave them at your house, it wasn't an accident. All part of the master plan. Macaroni is staged for shipment. Also thanks for proving your imperfection by posting (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) Agreed in the specific, a numerical limit per day is low value add. Todd should not do it, IMHO. Disagree in general with the proposition "there exist no high value add things that could be coded to effect a partial or total solution to this (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) ^^^...^^^ Er, that was a freudian slip. I meant to say probatIONing one user. But it was a planned slip, not a misteak, because I don't make those. (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) I like this idea too. I made a comment a little while ago about "amishnet"; I was actually kind of serious. One of the definining beliefs of the amish (and what largely seperates them from the background I come from, mennonite) is that (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) Of course, not 'O' great one. ;) Scott Sanburn (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) feel (...) _VOLUNTARILY_ (...) his (...) he (...) shows: (...) but (...) way (...) use? (...) about (...) the (...) Agreed. Since I spoke up against him, here I'll speak up for him. He did ask nicely about the different Lego retailers in the (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Mentors (was: Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET)
|
|
(...) Strongly agreed! (URL) actually, it wouldn't be all that difficult to implement if (a) we used the 'Approved-By' header for this and (b) the mentor was able to edit raw NNTP messages to add this header. That's really the only sticky bit on the (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mentors (was: Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET)
|
|
(...) Yes. The web being as universal as it is today, it doesn't bother me much that the volunteer moderators have to do their tasks via a web interface you provide. That's the only minus really. On the (minor) plus side is the fact that you don't (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mentors (was: Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET)
|
|
(...) I like the "Approved-By" approach, because of the obvious strength of not being web-dependent. But I think that in this case the web interface offers a lot of benefits -- it'd be easier to have multiple mentors, the interface could be nice and (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) Sorry. :( (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mentors (was: Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET)
|
|
(...) someone with mail with subjects like "WTF are my Lugnet posts?!" Seriously, though - possible to do it via the web? Say I'm a mentor - I go to a specific URL, give a username/password, then am presented with each of the messages I need to (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) I like this idea, but I think a self-regulated restriction would be better than a system-imposed limit, for several reasons: 1. Todd doesn't have to develop the solution. 2. It's a simple, measurable way for Jonathan to show (in)compliance. 3. (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
Mike Stanley <cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote in message news:slrn7rjncj.3vr....UTK.EDU... (...) posts, (...) irritating (...) Agreed. (...) Except that it is a worthwhile discussion to have, in that similar problems are likely to occur in the future. (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) I'm not sure I buy this. What value, exactly, does a signature bring? It seems decorative, and the value is mostly to the appender being able to make: (...) political statements or statements about their belief systems (...) more information (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) I like this idea as well. But I think we should wait on the results of the vote first - because he has gone over the edge with his antics (as far as I'm concerned) and I'd like to see a break where I don't have to worry about his posts at all. (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in message news:37BAC40E.8DA1F2...ger.net... (...) I think it's mostly a netiquete problem which compounds JW's other netiquete deficiencies. Maybe it's just nice to know there is a real person behind the (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) Of course not. It's ridiculous to think that people should be forced to use a sig. Your name's in the header, both handle and real name if you use one. What possible reason could we as a community come up with to justify forcing anyone to use (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) Having a sig does nothing, imo, to make a message more personal or make it clearer that a person had something to do with it. My newsreader injects sig.txt into my messages every time I post on - I have nothing to do with it. (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) I think I'm with Larry on this one. While a .sig is certainly traditional, I wouldn't go so far as to call it required by netiquette. (Especially in cases like lugnet, where there's not much fear of the header info being lost.) And actually, (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
I agree with Larry P. on the signature issue - it IS nice to have, but I'm not sure it's super-useful, at least when using the web interface to read LUGNET. I ususally don't put a full signature on messages... just my name and sometimes a comment. (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) as i pointed out to todd in a personal email days ago.. it's true.. people do overlook certain netiquette-breaking rules, depending on the overall picture you've painted of yourself and your demeanor... i never deal with titlecase when writing (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
[Hey! I remembered to trim the rest of the newsgroups header this time!] (...) I've gotta agree with the other follow-uppers on this point: lack of a signature is no reason, or even part of a reason, for disciplinary action. I feel the same about (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) Me neither. IMHO, having or not having a sig is a very personal choice, not a mandate by any stretch of the imagination. Probably only about half* of all the people on the net even use sigs. Personally, I don't use a sig because I find it much (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) I have also found the sig issue confusing. I used to use one, but the people i send e-mail to all the time got sick of it very quickly, as did I. And, I am too lazy to change it all the time. Besides, long rambling sigs are more of an (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Sig a probational condition?, philosophy of what we are doing (was Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
I just reviewed this subthread's responses and I didn't see a single person, so far, who felt that use of a sig was mandatory, so I'm not sure I'd either - be all that upset about it the larger scheme of things... or - make it be one of the terms of (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) Maybe someone can enlighten me, but I always considered "--Todd" to be the electronic equivalent of a "signature." (...) I agree here. It's the content of the posts, not the form, that really causes upset. (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) Oh. OK, yeah, I guess in the context of news posts, it could be considered an electronic equivalent of a real-life signature. But I thought we were talking about sigs (a.k.a. signature files). --Todd (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) Because of the way I access the internet I am unable to use a signature. (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) point releases generally don't add much functionality. I'm running 4.04 and easily generate the below, so certainly 4.03 has the capability as well, when used to do news or mail. So maybe there's another reason? But like I said, sigs are small (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) Look into multiple profiles. Netscape will let you have as many profiles as you wish and you can choose among them, the sig file used is driven by which profile you select on startup. (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) You might be able to, after all. According to your NNTP headers, You appear to be using Netscape 4.03 for Win95: X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) I'm not too familiar with that version, but I know that 4.5 has sig-file capability: In the (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) I know how to do it but the owner of the system I use wont let me set one up. (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) Of course, he might be using *lab* computers, where he shares his setup with everone else. In that case, you can set up the preferences on a floppy, including your bookmarks and such. I believe there is a user app that will let you do that. (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) Still, if it's not his system, the owner may be weird about things like this and not want it changed. It may not be worth the trouble. (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) I wonder if anyone else watching from the sidelines is finding this as absurd as I am? Insisting on how someone should sign their postings? (if at all). Any messages I get in Eudora clearly indicate who they are from before I even open them. (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) That shouldn't keep you from signing your messages. When posting from the web interface, I sign by adding "--Bram" to the end. If I'm emailing, I use a complete signature. There's nothing stopping you from typing your name at then end of a (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Sig a probational condition?, philosophy of what we are doing (was Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <37BB20F7.439C93D1@v...er.net>... *snip* (...) Seconded. *snip* (...) Hear Hear. Frank (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) up. Signing a post is easy. At the end, when you're ready to send, type the following: [return] [return] "J" "o" "n" [return] And then send the message as usual. If you prefer, you could spell your first name out. Personally, I think anything (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) Aaah. now I see Like this: JW (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) Heh. Well I think Bram might've been suggesting was more like this: --Jonathan When he said, "the same way you would sign a letter," he meant a written letter, not signing with letters. (I think. :-) --Todd (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) There is also no reason to even think about requiring that, is there? Nobody really thinks typing a few extra characters manually at the end of a post or e-mail makes the thing any more or less personal, do they? It really ISN'T like signing a (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) Well, either way, I think those two extra letters added quite a bit of meaning to the post. :) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) Hmmmmm.... my sigs have evolved over time. They started out being the main sure-fire way someone could find out the number to S@H and the web address of the specials page. I wouldn't call that wasteful junk. Now they point people to one of two (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) writes: (...) posting from (...) If I'm (...) stopping you from (...) would sign a (...) this: (...) a written (...) Funny, Todd :-) I really don't think it matters which way he signs it; we know what JW means. :) Ryan "You have to stick to (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
