| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Lorbaat wrote:
> Valid, yes in that they [the T&C] are internally consistent. But broken in
> that
> they prevent things that are reasonable and necessary.
Can you provide an example of something they prevent that is reasonable and
necessary?
> > 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.
I didn't say you thought that they didn't work in any possible circumstance. I
didn't say that *I* thought they didn't work in any possible circumstance.
You said that you thought they worked fine for IBM, but wouldn't work here. I
referred people to your post because it "summed up my thoughts".
> 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.
It's not. What I'm contending is that there are better options for us here.
> > 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.
I've never found him to be unreasonable in dealing with a first-time offender.
Can you cite an example?
> Further, it wasn't Todd that was causing the flap in this
> instance, it was the rest of us, myself included, I think.
I didn't say that Todd caused the flap. I said that Todd did a good and
evenhanded job reminding first-time offenders to review the T&C and follow
them.
> > 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.
I think you're assuming I mean "much more restrictive" than they need to be.
I'm referring more to things like your recent "grey-area" post. It was pretty
clearly against T&C (see below) but given your history on Lugnet, your
explaination of how it happened, etc, I would think that little more was needed
than to note that in practice it was wrong and you should be more careful in
the future. If it keeps happening, *then* something should be done about it.
But it's hardly the same as blatantly posting an auction announcement in
lugnet.general, for example, even if the T&C makes no distinction.
> 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.
What did Mark Twain say about "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"?
I suppose that someone who is in jail for embezzling funds from a charity is in
jail because of a law that was enforced capriciously, since embezzling isn't a
violent crime.
> > Actually, if you read [Todd's] 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.
Since you admit that it can be interpreted either way, your challenge is a
little, well, spurious. It would be better to ask Todd which he meant,
wouldn't it?
> 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.
Well, I think the intent of the T&C is pretty clear- auction announcements are
supposed to only be in l.m.a. Your post pretty much violated that intent by
directing people to your auction page for more information about something
else, making your post basically an ad for your auction page. I know what you
really wanted to do was disseminate some information, and not bring people to
your auction, but the post's intent was to send people to your auction page.
Making it an auction ad/announcement. Making it a violation. And as Todd
said, not having time to re-type all the info isn't an excuse to break T&C.
> > 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 ( :-) ),
Heh. Yeah, you caught my little pun.
> I'd rather
> he remained as a valuable contributor.
So would I. My suggested way of handling it would have had no impact on his
ability to post on-topic messages to any Lugnet group.
> That's not to say he doesn't need
> to be more careful in future, but this whole thing, reading over it, was
> overblown.
I think the whole thread was overblown. I still think that he got off too
lightly in light of his repeated violations and questionable intent, however.
The fact that he argued about it a lot and the thread got dragged out to an
absurd level (and that the whole council thing sprung out of it increasing the
length of the thread) doesn't change my mind about that.
eric
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
