Subject:
|
Re: No tolerance proposal.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 21 Oct 2000 15:43:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
411 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Moulton writes:
> I know that some people do not think I am sincere in my apologies and
> they want to see me banned. I would however like to make a no
> tolerance proposal. Basically I think that I should be on a sort of
> probation period for say the next three months. In those months I
> will not post anything that can be viewed as derogatory, degrading,
> vengeful, or spiteful; I will not participate in any kind of heated
> discussion, even in the off-topic groups; and I will act in a
> courteous and example setting way at all times. After the three
> months I think I should be off the no tolerance policy, however, I
> should still have to act in a courteous manner, just as any Lugnet
> user should. I think that my proposal is just and it will give me a
> chance to prove myself. If I should happen to do anything outside the
> proposal I think I should be immediately banned, without question and
> without discussion.
>
> -Matthew
Hmm.... thinking about exactly what's been going on around here, I think add
my $.02 to the issue.
- As to whether or not Matthew deserves to be permanently banned, as I've said
before, no. As for temporary banishment, perhaps. I could probably be
dissuaded either way on the issue.
- As to whether or not Matthew deserves to be permanently limited by newsgroup
as he is now, well, that's more of a non-issue. I don't think that's even been
suggested, let alone considered. Continued temporary group restriction,
however, I think may be in order.
- As to Matthew's suggestion, I'm going to have to disagree in part. Giving
any sort of time frame as reference for a 'one-strike-and-youre-out' period
seems rather useless to me. He's already got a big strike. I think any actions
he makes in the future need to potentially take this case into consideration.
Again, time frame makes little sense to me. I think it's ENTIRELY case
dependent. If Matthew has a private little flame war with some other member
further down the road, and it ends of its own accord as most do here on Lugnet
(not all, I suppose), then so be it. Further attempts at 'mass-upheaval'are
another issue. Deciding how many more 'strikes' he gets before he's 'out'
depends greatly on his offenses in the particular. And even then, I don't
believe in PERMANENT banishment.
- As to Todd's suggestion about discussion of Matthew's banishment vs. the
issues he tried to raise, there I find true gold. I think perhaps I might
propose something else with respect to that.
I think what I'd like to propose is that Matthew take serious part in a
discussion of the problems here on Lugnet that he sees and obviously
wants/wanted to change. I'd like to see his analysis of these problems, his
proposed solutions, and I'd like to see him take those proposals, or perhaps
those that someone else may derive, to the next level and actually apply them.
And I want that discussion to be civil from Matthew's perspective (and from
others, too, but with emphasis on Matthew); no name calling, no insulting, no
haughty attitudes or bragging.
And perhaps during this time frame, Matthew should be limited to a single
group, or several select groups. Or perhaps he should have free reign on all
newsgroups again. As Eric J said, the worst that can happen by providing him
access elsewhere on Lugnet is that he attempts to start a new flame (or
continue an old one), and would be swiftly back to being banned-- or at least
restricted. However, if other people think that he should continue to be
restricted to particular groups, I could be convinced of that as well.
In any event, as Todd has suggested, I'm rather weary with the discussion of
Matthew in particular, and I'd like to see our focus directed elsewhere, where
it can be productive. Let's end this episode as quickly as possible and get
back to building sand castles :)
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | No tolerance proposal.
|
| I know that some people do not think I am sincere in my apologies and they want to see me banned. I would however like to make a no tolerance proposal. Basically I think that I should be on a sort of probation period for say the next three months. (...) (24 years ago, 21-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
