Subject:
|
Re: It is time to ban JAL.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:09:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
910 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Gerber writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, James Brown writes:
>
> Well, I was hoping someone wouldn't waste their time building just that
> list. Seriously, where does it get us? You missed my instances of a certain
> 3-letter word...are you sure you don't want to make a LUGNET page listing
> all of the violations Eric? You could do continual upkeep on it, at least
> until you were the last one posting to the groups.
I think that was Eric's point, at least sort of. Lots of people slip up
(Eric, please correct me if I misrepresented you but that's what I thought
you were implying). People ought to be told that they slipped up and given a
chance to correct their ways.
In the past there were tools to punish or get the attention of transgressors
short of a complete ban. I recall one poster being banned for a day. I
recall posters being banned from certain groups because they violated rules
of that group, and being subsequently reinstated.
I am not sure what to think.
I don't support banning someone for being arrogant (else I myself am subject
to banning, I guess) or for being rude, if it is an isolated incident. I
don't support banning someone for using profanity, at least not on the first
occurence, or if it was inadvertant, or if the rules of the particular group
seem to allow it (not sure about that).
I don't even support banning someone for being clueless (don't tempt me on
that one, though, please... :-) ).
A ban ought to be for a consistent pattern of wilful transgression of the
rules. Do we have that in this case? I dunno. It seems borderline.
All of the above is my opinion only, the administrators of LUGNET will
enforce the rules as they see fit, and I will abide. Sorry if this seems
like second guessing. I guess it is, though.
PS to Shiri, I'm not self-conscious. That phrase means, at least in the US,
that I would be shy about speaking my mind on things, or overly modest and
reluctant to acknowledge my own merits.
I think it's pretty clear I don't have those issues. I believe you meant a
different term when you used that one. Perhaps self-confident? :-)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: It is time to ban JAL.
|
| (...) Grrr... talk about mixed metaphors... I think I was making some sort of mix between self-confident and, umm, conceited? <sheepish grin> (Wait, let me check I got *that* word right... yep) Beats me. I don't know *what* I was thinking... going (...) (23 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: It is time to ban JAL.
|
| (...) Well, I was hoping someone wouldn't waste their time building just that list. Seriously, where does it get us? You missed my instances of a certain 3-letter word...are you sure you don't want to make a LUGNET page listing all of the violations (...) (23 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
30 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
|
|
|
|
