Subject:
|
Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 Feb 2000 21:16:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
960 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Frank Filz writes:
> Ok, I'll detail what my response to Scott's latest post is. I don't remember
> all of Scott's previous posts, but any new way of dealing with things is
> going to have to mostly let water which has already passed under the bridge
> go, so I'll make some reference to the older ones, but not cover them all.
I think it's always a bad idea to close your eyes to history.
> First off, my suggestion is that posts which are deemed inappropriate for
> ANY reason sufficient to consider warranting any action be canceled,
I agree with Todd's current policy on cancels. I think that publicly pointing
out that a post is incorrect (which ALSO ends up in the permanent record of
Lugnet) is all that is needed to make it clear that this is not an appropriate
post to newcomers.
What's more, it would actually serve as an *example*, whereas if they're
cancelled, they can't be reviewed.
> On the other hand,
> Scott may feel that his post was ok as is, and appeals to the whole
> moderating team.
I must have snipped the point at which you first suggested the idea of appeals,
so I'll respond to it here:
I think it's a supremely bad idea, because it brings subjective opinions into
the T&C. The T&C as written (and I don't think there's any need to change
them) are very clear about what it right and what is wrong. There really is no
need for an explaination or an appeal, and in the end they'll result in more
hurt feelings and more problems.
> Wrto automoderation - I just had an idea. Since there is a small set of
> words which cause problems, how about setting up an automoderator which keys
> on those words (with allowance for newsgroup).
I think this is also not such a good idea. Automoderation by keywords will
lead to huge problems. I mean, I suppose since Lugnet is supposed to be
swear-free, there are CERTAIN words that could be applied to, but it would
never catch everything. I promise you I can compose a post out of words you'd
only find in Dr. Seuss and Curious George that would make a sailor blush. :D
I think it was AOL that tried something like this, and ended up filtering out
Breast Cancer Support Group websites. Oops.
> Like I've said before, three strikes and
> you're out doesn't work. You will start kicking people out who perhaps had a
> bad start, reformed, and then just had a bad day.
I didn't say it would work here. I said that was the guideline I had used
before in a different environment, where there were totally different
repercussions for allowing someone to drag things out.
> The ONLY things I see wrong with Scott's latest post is that it was
> crossposted when it should not have been, and was a little too fuzzy about
> being an auction posting.
And it follows a pattern he's established for pushing the boundaries of where
he can announce his profuse Lego auctions on eBay.
> I'm also not really clear on how you want Lugnet to be run. What I draw from
> the way you have posted, is that you want people to be burned badly if they
> happen to mis-post once in a while, never mind what impact it has on others.
Not true at all. I would like to see repeat offenders suffer some real
consequence, however.
> Do you even care that a valued member of the community has left (or is very
> close to leaving) because they got caught in the crossfire here, because
> they posted something that some people considered as an auction, even though
> it didn't call itself an auction, but could have been better worded (I
> considered it an auction myself)?
I think it's unfortunate that her post came directly on the heels of a bigger
issue, and at a time when people were overly sensitive to misplaced postings.
I think that caused people to overreact. However, the reaction of "well, fine,
then I'll just leave Lugnet" is also an overreaction, IMHO.
What it comes down to is that while I certainly would hate to see any
productive member of the Lugnet society leave, I also can't control the actions
and feelings of other people. The whole idea of reprimanding people for
violating T&C is an ugly business, but ultimately it's the member's actions
that earn a reprimand, and how they react to them is their own business.
> Now part of the problem may be that there were no sanctions for Scott's
> earlier transgressions.
Actually, there were. The same that are (in so far as I know) still in place
from this one- being blocked from lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade.
> I think there needs to be a stepped response. Don't
> go from "blocked access until you make it clear to Todd that you understand
> what you did wrong" to "blocked from market.auction and
> market.buy-sell-trade" for 6 months.
Just as a note, to once again clear up my suggestion: After apologising and
making it clear he understood what he did wrong, Scott would have had full
posting privs to all of Lugnet. After the NEXT violation, he would have been
blocked from lugnet.market.*. In my opinion, that *is* a stepped response.
eric
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
| (...) I agree, and I also tend to think that forcing or recommending cancellation of misplaced announcements would only encourage an increase in misplaced announcements because the perceived damage (and thus the risk) is lower. Plus, I think there (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
| Just a general thought: One problem we have in this whole discussion is that there are two separate (but related) issues on the table, which unfortuanately are currenlty tightly coupled. The first issue is Scott's mis-post. The second issue is how (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
| Lorbaat wrote in message ... (...) violator (...) Because it contributed NOTHING to the discussion. This one does. I'll respond below. (...) repeat (...) what (...) Ok, I'll detail what my response to Scott's latest post is. I don't remember all of (...) (25 years ago, 18-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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
