Subject:
|
Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 Feb 2000 22:05:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
974 times
|
| |
|
|
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 we are going to fix the obvious problems with
Lugnet. The current rash of mis-placed auction posts, the flaming some
people have got for posting trade posts outside the market groups, etc.
strongly suggest to me that the Lugnet T&C are broken.
Lorbaat wrote:
>
> 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.
The second issue I pointed out above is why I feel that we need to let
past water under the bridge go. The rules are broken. It is totally
unfair to someone to say that what they did under broken rules has much
application to the future.
I also received an off-line note from Scott pointing out that his
problem with the rapid fire mis-placed auction posts was when he was
first starting to use a newsreader. I'm inclined to almost totally
ignore errors made by someone using a new piece of software.
If I have time this weekend, I'll look over Scotts other past errors and
see what feelings I come out with.
> > 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.
I REALLY wish I could find a publicly available copy of the explanation
for why IBM chose to use deletion/cancelation for the internal
conferencing. I have to say it works. There is very little problem with
seriously misplaced posts (the only place I regularly see misplaced
posts is that the naming convention use for their equivalent to
lugnet.admin.general would cause lugnet.admin.general to be named
lugnet. There are almost weekly misplaced posts there).
One reason NOT to go with public chastisement is that it can result in
unnecessary hard feelings (a newbie who didn't know how their software
works comes out looking like a jerk). Also, for the erroneous post to
not serve as an example of what might be ok, the future newbie has to
actually see the response (which they might not if they find the post
with a search, and don't bother to read the responses).
Now if a pattern of mis-posts develops, there may need to be public
clarification. The rules may also need to be re-visited, and people may
need to be reminded to re-read the rules.
> > 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.
The T&C are not crystal clear on what is right and wrong. They do not
define a perfect line in the sand. Note that Todd isn't even really sure
about Larry's post. If the creator of the rules isn't absolutely sure
something is right or wrong, then appeals are needed. Also note that
part of my intention was that any ONE member of the team should act
immediately if they see a problem, but the offender may appeal to the
whole team. If having a team is going to mean anything, either the whole
team has to agree before any action is taken, or there has to be an
appeal process.
Another point I would like to make. Humans are not perfect. The rules
are not perfect. It is impossible to achieve perfection. To this extent,
I believe we need to make allowances for that imperfection, and cut
people a break occaisionally.
If Lugnet is going to operate on the idea that it must be perfect, I'm
outta here. This is a hobby, not brain surgery.
> > 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.
Note that my idea for automoderation wasn't a wall that couldn't be
crossed, but rather a way to kick certain posts back to their author for
review in light of the rule it may have broken. If the poster thinks
it's ok, he may re-submit.
Lugnet does have at least one automoderator (which doesn't provide an
override, but also doesn't need it). Try posting to lugnet.announce
without follow-ups set...
> > 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.
I don't disagree, but the consequence must be judged in view of the
whole of Lugnet. In my opinion, we have more than chastised Scott by
dragging this whole thing through the mud. My current opinion is that
Scott's problems have been unintentional, and related to
mis-understanding tools and a little bit the rules. I don't think that
deserves punnishment. I don't think it rises to the point of suggesting
that we come down hard on Scott for his next violation (unless it is
something outrageous).
> > 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.
I think someone leaving Lugnet because an occaisional auction gets
announced outside lugnet.market.auction would also be an overreaction,
but that seems to be the concern about auction posts (I repeat my point
that auctions are the only normal topic which is specifically
constrained to a specific group).
The person also communicated to me that they had raised concerns to Todd
on several occaisions and felt unheard. Right now there is a strong
feeling that raising a concern about a misplaced auction will get an
immediate response from Todd, but raising other concerns will just get
you ignored. This is going to cause people to leave. I think that sucks,
and I think it is because of problems with Lugnet. I want to help fix
those problems.
> 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.
However, I remember that you wanted a period of 6 months. That's an
awfully long time, especially in comparison to the sanctions placed on
Jonathan Wilson.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
| (...) It isn't going to make me leave, although it does mean that sometimes I don't bother submitting ideas or problems.. which perhaps isn't a bad thing depending on the quality of my ideas ;-) (...) I'd like to help too, that's why I thought (...) (25 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
| (...) Agreed. But I think that one has been resolved, more or less, in that it appears that Todd has indicated that he would like for some sort of commitee to form. (...) Right. (...) Here, we disagree again. I think the T&C are perfectly valid as (...) (25 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
| (...) I think it's always a bad idea to close your eyes to history. (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
