Subject:
|
Re: It is time to ban JAL.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:34:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
897 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> > As it turns out, I've just received word that JAL *has* been banned.
>
> He broke the Terms of Use Agreement.
> http://news.lugnet.com/people/?n=2508
I oughtta clarify that a bit...
JAL was not "banned" (that's a very loaded word) and as far as I'm aware,
neither Suzanne nor I ever used the word "ban" or "banned" to him. What
happened earlier is that the server has been instructed to reject messages
sent with his known 'From:' lines. In other words, his posting privileges
have been revoked for clearly breaking the T&C, which was an agreement he
agreed to be bound to when he signed up. "You breaka the rules, we breaka
you face." It hasn't been discussed or decided when/if the privileges should
be reinstated. Therefore the word "ban" is inaccurate.
--
Todd S. Lehman | LUGNET Admin <todd@lugnet.com>
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: It is time to ban JAL.
|
| (...) Hi, I think that people were using the term "ban" because it was in the thread title that I started. I wasn't sure what word to use in place of "privileges revocation" so I guess the term stuck. You are right, of course, and the term is very (...) (23 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
