Subject:
|
Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 17 Feb 2000 23:37:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
837 times
|
| |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Lorbaat (<Fq3IoE.53M@lugnet.com>) wrote at 22:33:50
> In lugnet.admin.general, Frank Filz writes:
>
> > Either contribute something useful to the discussion or go jump in a
> > lake.
>
> In what way was my post not a useful contribution? I'm seriously trying to
> determine at what point someone has shown themselves to be enough of a violator
> of T&C to warrant disciplinary action.
Perhaps there isn't one.
Larry has commented on the relative informality of proceedings here, and
perhaps most people are just happy to let things go if the person
concerned just says sorry.
>
> You say that you would support action against repeat offenders- so how repeat
> would they have to be in your mind? Obviously, Scott doesn't qualify- so what
> would?
Like I said, there are not hard and fast parameters.
>
> I'm sure we all appreciate the relative orderliness that having T&C brings.
Relative being the operative word.
> I'm sure that none of us would want to see lugnet.* degenerate into the
> relative chaos that r.t.l has become. Unfortunately, that means that at SOME
> point you have to draw the line. At SOME point you have to say "this person
> has gone too far". I'm just wondering at what point *you* draw that line.
Different people have different points.
This place is Todd's sandpit. Either we abide by his rules, period, or
we go somewhere else. It's Todd's call.
I favour a point negotiated by a group with delegated responsibility for
these issues.
> You
> say in your earlier post that you would support ToSsing repeat offenders, but
> then you say that Scott Arthur's actions don't warrant disciplinary action.
> That seems like a bit of a contradiction to me. I'm honestly curious how they
> balance out in your mind. I'm sure you have a valid opinion as a member of the
> Lugnet community concerning this, as do I. I'm trying to engage you in a
> discussion about it. It is, to me, a very important matter, as it seems to be
> to you. I know the matter is distasteful, and I'm not trying to be an ogre,
> but it's a decision that Lugnet is going to have to come to in order to move
> forward as a healthy community.
It does seem like you've got an axe to grind here, and frankly, it's
getting boring. I speak as someone who has read all of the thread, but
not commented, because mostly, it just wasn't worth it. It was obvious
quite early that there were several opinions that were never going to be
reconciled. But there is no mediation service here. Or should that be
moderation.
>
> In any event, as I said, you should at least be prepared for people who feel
> differently than you about matters to post and say so. There seem to me to be
> a lot of people reading these posts, but not discussing them, and I can only
> assume that means they haven't made up their minds.
See above.
> If you can feel free to
> post your opinions, I can only assume that you would want someone with a
> dissenting opinion to post theirs, in the spirit of discussion and open debate.
I suspect that a lot of this could have been sorted out with a short
meeting. One of the problems with this form of communication is that
things get dragged out too long.
Would it be possible to set up something like a moderated .round-table
group where people could take this sort of discussion, and only bring it
back when they've got something constructive to report?
--
Tony Priestman
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
| (...) In what way was my post not a useful contribution? I'm seriously trying to determine at what point someone has shown themselves to be enough of a violator of T&C to warrant disciplinary action. You say that you would support action against (...) (25 years ago, 17-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
82 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
