Subject:
|
Re: Pre Auction Anouncment/Sale/Trade - Parts & Sets (8448 / 7171 / Pirates)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:47:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
845 times
|
| |
|
|
"Lorbaat" <eric@nospam.thirteen.net> wrote in message
news:Fpx8v2.6C7@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > Additionally, the "three strikes and
> > your a out policy" is great for lazy administraotrs, as it avoids them
> > having to look at any mitegating circumstances.
>
> There are no mitigating circumstances after the first error. Terms of • Service
> are Terms of Service. Violating them should lead to corrective action. • If a
> person continues to violate, them, and shows that they have no • understanding of
> why ToS's exist- and by extension, why violating them is bad- more extreme
> measures have to be taken.
>
> You have repeatedly shown yourself to be in the latter catagory. Even in • this
> post.
That is your opinion.
>
> > IMOP, all it takes is a
> > quick corrective post to highlight:
> > a) Which rule has been brocken.
> > b) Emabarres the posters.
> > c) Warn other posters that some sort of ToS do exist
>
> All of which has been tried with you, yet you show no understanding of why • it's
> bad or any true intention of making sure it doesn't happen in the future.
Again, that is your opinion.
>
> > I think over the last two
> > days a number of wrongly posted items have been highlighted.... but I'm
> > sure there may be others out there?
>
> No, over the last few days you've mentioned a few things you seem to think • are
> wrong. Most weren't, as has been pointed out to you. Some were • questionable.
> None were as clear-cut wrong as posting an auction announcement in an
> unacceptable group, which is what you did.
No. What I did was post a poorly worded pre-auction sale post in B.S.T. -
which I regret. This was supposed to be along the same lines as this post,
which was acceptable at the time:
http://www.lugnet.com/market/buy-sell-trade/?n=4246
Furthermore, posts _have_ been shown to be what you say : "an auction
announcement in an unacceptable group".
See:
http://www.lugnet.com/general/?n=14839
http://www.lugnet.com/market/auction/?n=4396
... and that is my opinion.
>
> Further, that smokescreen doesn't change the fact that we're all waiting • to
> hear a more acceptable suggestion from you concerning future action that
should
> be taken when you again violate that posting ban.
It is not clear to me that Todd has rejected my _sincere_ & _genuine_ offer?
Is it clear to you?
Scott A
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
110 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
