Subject:
|
Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 20 Feb 2000 20:54:40 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@SAYNOTOSPAMnovera.com
|
Viewed:
|
1142 times
|
| |
|
|
Lorbaat wrote:
> 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.
Valid, yes in that they are internally consistent. But broken in that
they prevent things that are reasonable and necessary.
>
> > 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.
But I in fact said that cancellation DOES work and IS effective as a
control technique. I then pointed out that it may not be something we
can do here for reasons having nothing to do with how well it works.
Sorry if that didn't come across clearly, but you should not view what I
said as supporting your contention that cancellation doesn't work if
that's what you're contending.
> > 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.
Usually. But there are hot button areas where Todd comes on a bit
strong. Further, it wasn't Todd that was causing the flap in this
instance, it was the rest of us, myself included, I think.
> > 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.
And I would argue that the T&C should in fact be precisely as
restrictive as they need to be and no more. Granting leniency based on
individual circumstances as interpreted by someone is unjust. For
example, certain jurisdictions have laws against kissing in public, or
against swearing in public. But they go unenforced, except when some
officer wants to make an example of someone. That is patently unjust. I
don't want that here. I want it to be crystal clear what is wrong and
hold people to exactly that. No more, no less.
Anything else is a miscarriage of justice. The US has 2 million people
in jail right now, only 300,000 of them for actual violent crimes. The
rest are in jail because of laws that are enforced capriciously. Let's
leave that outside of Lugnet by ensuring we have clear rules with clear
penalties that can be easily enforced with no gray areas.
> > 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.
Well, in fact, that's what I thought at first too. But then I re-read
his posts and a perfectly valid alternative explanation is that he does
NOT feel my posting of X information referencing an auction listing as a
way to reference more information is a violation, and he posts an
example of one that IS to show that it's a grey area and difficult to
interpret. Mayhaps that wasn't his intent but I'd challenge you to prove
differently. Never did he come out and say one way or the other. Or I
missed it. But certainly not in the first post, which got my hackles up.
It wasn't till I went back and re-read that I saw it the other way.
And that precisely proves my point. The T&C are broken as they are
written. Or the person admining them isn't being clear. Because he can't
be.
> 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.
Bad joke alert:
I don't want him to get off "scot" free, either. He's after all, a Scot
named Scott and I'd rather we weren't free of him ( :-) ), I'd rather
he remained as a valuable contributor. That's not to say he doesn't need
to be more careful in future, but this whole thing, reading over it, was
overblown.
--
Larry Pieniazek - lpieniazek@mercator.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
| Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <38B05490.B7C062B8@v...er.net>... (...) stand. I (...) in (...) slip-up) (...) indicate (...) Also at least partly broken in that they rely on Todd's interpretation that a "sealed bid auction" is not an auction (at (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
