Subject:
|
Re: My Stance
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 20 Oct 2000 21:09:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3210 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, James Brown writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, James Brown writes:
> > > I *do* think Matthew should be banned for his deliberate and malicious
> > > attack on the Lego community, which he admitted to himself.
> >
> > If it was posted here I would agree but I don't think it was. It may have
> > been posted on his site or sent to Todd and then he admitted to it here but I
> > don't think he made the attack on LUGNET. He has admitted to starting an RTL
> > flame war 3 years ago, thats a long time and even if he admits it, he *may*
> > have outgrown it. Now I think he did directly threaten Todd and/or LUGNET
> > but not in a post so I don't know if the LUGNET TOS applies, thats up to
> > Todd to determine.
>
> I can't recall where exactly he said it (in a couple places, I think), but
> Matthew admitted in a post on Lugnet that he faked the content on his website
> and made the inflamatory remarks that he did specifically to damage the Lego
> community. IMO, that's where he crossed the line. (my personal line - I don't
> know about other people, or where exactly he crossed the line WRT Lugnet ToS)
Well that definitely wasn't nice if thats how it happened. *But* how much
damage do you think he could have done to us from his site? From a technical
standpoint his site is nice but not something that is going to generate a ton
of hits on its own so I don't think it is much to worry about. Besides I don't
know how anyone useing a clear head and judgement could find the LEGO community
malicious anyway no matter how much he tried to portray it that way.
>
> If that sort of activity *isn't* ToSable, it should be.
>
> (checking... it is)
> <excerpt from: http://www.lugnet.com/admin/terms/agreement >
> Although we hope that everyone can play well together, we must reserve the
> right to allow or to refuse access to this site to anyone, for any reason,
> with or without prior warning or explanation.
>
> There ya go. Black and white acknowledgement of the right of refusal, with
> implication (as I read it, anyway) that it may be used for people who
> don't "play well"
Actually that makes just about anything TOS'able. Just from that one part of
the TOS Todd could "refuse access" to anyone he wanted for any reason he
wanted. So yes Todd would be well within his rights to TOS Matthew and like I
said I don't really care one way or another but it would set a precedent seeing
I don't think anyone has been TOS'ed from 100% of LUGNET in its history and if
they have it hasn't held with time. I know some people have been TOS'ed
temporarily from sections of LUGNET but that is all.
No 100% ban should be taken lightly (and I don't think it is thats why Todd
opened .admin.general back up to Matthew). I just think any 100% ban on anyone
could eventually look very bad for LUGNET and Todd may have to justify the ban
for some time to come.
Eric Kingsley
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: My Stance
|
| (...) I can't recall where exactly he said it (in a couple places, I think), but Matthew admitted in a post on Lugnet that he faked the content on his website and made the inflamatory remarks that he did specifically to damage the Lego community. (...) (24 years ago, 20-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
122 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
