Subject:
|
Re: Pre Auction Anouncment/Sale/Trade - Parts & Sets (8448 / 7171 / Pirates)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 14 Feb 2000 20:38:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
907 times
|
| |
|
|
Lorbaat wrote:
>
> In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > > ...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.
>
> So tell us: Whys is it bad, and what will you do to ensure it doesn't happen
> in the future?
Eric,
While I agree that what Scott did was wrong, I totally disagree that it
was a willfull, blatant, attempt to put an auction announcement in BST.
It was an attempt to offer the goods for sale/trade prior to being
auctioned. It was terribly worded, but Scott is the only one ultimately
who can decide if he was deliberate in what he did. You keep wanting him
to admit that it was deliberate. If it isn't, he can't admit it (or do
you think that the sanctity of Lugnet is more imporant than people's
personal morals, that Scott should LIE and say "yes, I intended to post
an auction announcement and had no intention whatsoever of conducting a
sale or trade"?). I do base part of my belief on having communicated
with Scott prior to his posting about possibly arranging a trade or
purchase of stuff before he put it up for auction, that knowledge that
Scott was interested in that gave me the insight to see the intent of
his post (even when I initially thought it was even more poorly worded
than it is, it does say PRE-AUCTION).
I have to admit that I keep swinging back and forth on who is most wrong
in this case. At this point, I think Scott is being dragged over the
coals. He has made an offer for a penalty, and has said that it is
sincere. No one has really responded with sincerety to that request. I
would say that at this point, either Todd needs to come back with a
counter offer, or say that a $10 fine is totally innapropriate (either
way too low, or not remotely what kind of sanction he wants to have).
It might be adviseable for Scott to offer an alternative sanction, but
right now, what I hear is that Eric does not want to hear anything short
of something Scott can not offer. At this point, I see that either the
community needs to respond to Scott seriously, drop the matter entirely,
or decide that Scott doesn't belong here at all. Tossing a hot potato in
Scott's lap isn't going to get a response other than tossing the hot
potato back. Scott, you do need to stop pointing to other violations
(unless there is someone who is repeatedly violating the rules, and not
getting banned, but I don't see that right now, though I do see a flurry
of misplaced auction posts [which are blatant auction posts unlike
Scott's, but that still isn't the issue]).
I would like to see Scott be able to continue being a contributor to
Lugnet. I think Scott is capable of being responsible (he did after all
remove the 2000 set pictures after Todd convinced him that they were
innapropriate, and did ask for a post to be canceled). 3 strikes and
your out resolutions don't work except for extreme cases (which this is
not, it is not remotely comparable to someone using an ISP to Spam the
world, Lugnet is not going to get blocked by major ISPs because someone
posts what could be construed as an auction posting into BST).
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
