Subject:
|
Re: Todd! Admin and owner
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:28:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
497 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
> > [...] Don't get me wrong I don't think I like Matthew I just don't like the
> > reasoning I am seeing for banning him.
>
> Can you be more specific?
Well I don't know how specific you want but without nameing names I will try.
I also assume you want specifics as to what I don't like about the reasoning
for banning Matthew not reasoning for not liking Matthew.
It is my feeling that there are more than a few people that would have Matthew
banned primarily for the content on his site. That in my oppinion is just
wrong. I would even go as far as saying that it shouldn't even come into
consideration in terms of banning him. I don't want to have to think that I
have to think twice about what I put on the internet because it might get me
tossed here or anywhere else for that matter.
The fact is there is a lot of objectional matterial on the net and Matthew
doesn't even come close to any of the stuff on the net that really bothers me.
Sure its about the most objectional LEGO site I have seen but not reason enough
to ban him.
In terms of what he started here with his posting, to me that was a first time
mistake and it is possible he just got caught up in the heat of the "Flame War"
that ensued with some of his other statements. I think in cases before people
have been given second chances and I see nothing wrong with that. Just lay out
the ground rules and if he screws up again then ban him. One precedent I can
think of is the Jonathan Wilson problem. Jonathan was given a second chance
and I think he has become an upstanding member of "the community".
Now many consider his apologys hollow, and they may be, but until he is given a
second chance how do we know for sure?
In my mind the one outstanding factor here is the threat he made to you. That
very well may be reason enough to ban him but that is your decision.
So I guess what I am trying to say is that I hope it is his actions on LUGNET
that are considered and not the content of his site. There should also be no
conditions made that require him to change the content of his site. He has
been put on trial here and personally I think that is a bit unfair because we
are not an impartial jury. I think the decision is totally up to you, Todd,
and if people want to threaten you with actions based on your decision I
personally find that just as objectionable as much of what Matthew said and we
don't need them.
It's fine for you to self title LUGNET "The fiendliest place on the internet"
but that does not immunize us from these situations. You should deal with them
as they occur but I don't think "The Community" should be made jury for those
decisions because that could make for an even worse situation in my mind.
Eric Kingsley
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
9 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
