Subject:
|
Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 19 Feb 2000 01:18:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
986 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> > [...]
> > 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 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 would be plenty of people who would find it "all too
> tempting" to post a misplaced announcement on purpose, then cancel it (with
> or without apology), calculating that enough people might've seen it while
> it was there to make it worthwhile (to justify the risk, that is).
Well, my thoughts on this are:
I think the "attractive nuisance" factor will be lower with deleted posts.
People who repeatedly abuse the system still need to be dealt with.
The reasons I think cancellation are better are:
The damage of a mis-post is reduced, because of this, we can be a little
more lenient when the mis-post is a result of poor wording or just plain
hasty thinking. Of course part of this whole business is that I want to err
on the side of assuming people's intentions are good. Why? I don't want to
lose contributors just because they find the place to unwelcome to them
(perhaps because they have very limited time, Like Larry's time has been
this past week - what if Larry had been a newcomer and got blasted for that
mis-post, do we want to risk losing newcomers because we blast them [not
that a newcomer would have been blasted in the same way, I think Todd's
counter example post would have been done a little differently <or at least
I hope so>]?).
No worry of people down the road seeing a mis-post and thinking it is ok to
do the same thing.
I'm really hoping Larry will have some time to pop in his thoughts because I
know he is familiar with IBM's conferencing and could at least provide
another opinion on post cancellation.
Another thought on post cancellation, in extreme cases like inappropriately
posted IP, the post needs to come down, so cancellation is the order. In an
extreme case, I would expect it to be Lugnet's responsibility to remove the
post ASAP (think of the child pornography issue which was discussed in
debate a while ago).
And my experience with IBM's conferencing is that there was little or no
abuse. People didn't post things in the expectation that enough people would
read them.
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
| (...) I totally agree. Cancellation as a moderating technique, used consistently, worked extremely well in the IBM environment. It's been 5 years since I was there but I ran some fairly controversial FORUMs and had to use the heavy hand of (...) (25 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
