| |
In lugnet.loc.au, Mike Stanley writes:
> In lugnet.loc.au, Todd Lehman writes:
> > Is there anyone who would "vouch" for Mark and be willing to take a fall with
> > him if he had his posting privileges restored but subsequently botched things
> > again later? I suspect he would be much less eager to push the boundaries
> > and see what he could get away with if he knew someone else would be taken
> > down with him. (Just a thought.) Again, I have no problem with Mark's
> > posting anywhere if he simply is willing to play fair. In the collective
> > group of .loc.au, for example, can somehow convince Mark to clean up his act,
> > by all means do try to convince him it would be worth his while.
This comes back to an issue I raised a while ago.
http://www.lugnet.com/admin/terms/?n=86 (and follow the thread through)
> I'm pretty surprised you even wrote this, to be honest.
>
> Mark's proven to you and others he doesn't feel he has to follow the rules,
> even if he's warned that not following them will get him kicked out of here.
> That someone else would be silly enough to put his posting privileges on the
> line for Mark seems farfetched, but I'd hope you wouldn't even entertain the
> idea, much less enforce it.
>
> Mark's responsible for himself - nobody else is. Don't want to slam you or
> anything for writing that, but I do want to point out that the only person who
> should "suffer" for Mark's wrongdoings is Mark.
You're right. No one else should take a fall for his transgressions.
> > Write me when you've (collectively) decided that you (as a group) feel
> > assured that Mark can and will play fair (by the rules) and I'll turn his
> > posting privileges back on, based on your good word as a group.
>
> And what happens when/if he reverts?
Then as the boy who cried wolf one too many times, he'd be out for good. Todd
is a very tolerant person, but I bet even he has his "breaking point".
However, to get back on-topic (or where I want to take this topic), my initial
comments a month ago were that the most frequent users of loc.au (largely, but
not necessarily only, Australians) don't mind these sorts of posts in the
loc.au group. I personally welcome them as I tend not to frequent the market
groups due to lack of relevance, since they are mainly dominated by US-related
market issues, and you could argue that a post about sales/auctions in
Australia are relevant to the loc.au group.
As a regular contributor to the loc.au group I would rather we petition Todd
to alter the T&C's to allow market posts in the loc.au group rather than
collectively vouch for MarkH not violating these same T&C's again.
If things got out of hand we could always revert back, but I doubt this would
happen given the distinct lack of market activity in Australia (but that's
another issue ;-)
I don't want to see a loc.au.market group created as we already have too many
groups under loc.au for the number of regular contributors (although we are
growing :-). If Todd feels it is necessary to create this group, then I would
suggest closing a few of the other sub-groups and maintaining only the
state/territory groups.
I can't speak for MarkH, but I would hazzard a guess that if the above was
implimented 95% of the problems (with MarkH) would vanish. The other 5%,
well... that's up to MarkH.
Comments, anyone???
Pete Callaway
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Question for Todd Regarding Mark Harrison
|
| (...) I'm pretty surprised you even wrote this, to be honest. Mark's proven to you and others he doesn't feel he has to follow the rules, even if he's warned that not following them will get him kicked out of here. That someone else would be silly (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jun-00, to lugnet.loc.au)
|
17 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
|
|
|
|
