Subject:
|
Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 20 Feb 2000 17:15:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
946 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Frank Filz writes:
> 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.
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.
> The first issue is Scott's mis-post.
Right.
> 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.
Here, we disagree again. I think the T&C are perfectly valid as they stand. I
don't see what's "broken" about them. What do you think is broken? Keep in
mind that people violating them (whether through laziness, intent, or slip-up)
and people mistakenly accusing other people of breaking them doesn't indicate
that they're broken.
> 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.
I think Todd and Larry both pretty much summed up my thoughts on why this
doesn't work, so I'll just refer you to their posts.
> 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).
If the chastisement isn't unnecessarily harsh, this shouldn't be a problem.
Todd generally does a good job now, as things stand, of nicely pointing out to
people that a post is inappropriate for some reason.
> The T&C are not crystal clear on what is right and wrong.
Actually, they pretty much are. Like all good T&C, they're much more
restrictive than would need to really be enforced.
> Note that Todd isn't even really sure
> about Larry's post.
Actually, if you read his posts carefully, he's pretty clear that Larry's post
violates the T&C. He recognised that Larry probably didn't intend it the way
it came out, though, and posted something same-but-different to show *why*
Larry's post was wrong.
> 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.
You seem to be continuing to labor under the misapprehension that I expect
people to never make a single mistake. That's just not true.
> 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.
Not in mine. If this discussion led to a demonstrable understanding on his
part of why the T&C exist and a necessary, and he understood that a next (ie,
his fifth) violation of the T&C would lead to some real action, that would be
enough.
I don't think he should get off scot free just because his incident was the one
that caused a lot of debate about how disciplinary actions for violating the
T&C were going to be handled.
> I think someone leaving Lugnet because an occaisional auction gets
> announced outside lugnet.market.auction would also be an overreaction,
Agreed. If someone were to leave because of the current off-topic traffic,
that would be an overreation.
If, however, the traffic gets worse and worse, then they'd be justified.
The traffic will get worse if something isn't done about the small amount of
traffic now, even if that something is as minor as pointing out to people that
it's wrong, and taking small disciplinary actions.
> 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.
Jonathan, if I recall correctly (and I didn't follow that too closely, so I
might not have it right) almost lost his privs to pretty much the only group he
posted to PERMANENTLY. With that over his head, he strightened up. Correct?
And, to be honest, 6 months is a figure I pulled out of thin air because it
seemed overly long even to me, and I expected it to get argued down. If the
decision had been in my hands at that second, I would have said 3 months.
Which is long, yes, but the point is for it to be a severe punishement enacted
in the event of a further violation. Further, if that had to be enacted, and
Scott chose to return after the three months, it would say a lot about his
commitment to being in the Lugnet community- and he'd be even more likely not
to do it again.
eric
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
| (...) Valid, yes in that they are internally consistent. But broken in that they prevent things that are reasonable and necessary. (...) But I in fact said that cancellation DOES work and IS effective as a control technique. I then pointed out that (...) (24 years ago, 20-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (24 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
|
|
|
|
