| |
(you didn't say "for the eyes of... ONLY" :-)
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> Alfred:
>
> What would possess you to bring this topic up after the approx. 20 days the
> thread has been dead?
It's not dead, it's just resting. :-)
Calling for a member to be banned is a very serious matter. At least it
*ought* to be considered very serious.
Unless that call is withdrawn, some answer ought to be given (perhaps after
a small delay to see if it *will* be withdrawn) that is substantive and
authoritative. (for example "yes there was a ToS violation but it's not
serious enough to ban over" or "no, there was not a ToS violation and the
call is unwarranted" or "yes there was and it IS serious enough and Larry is
herewith banned" or whatever the case may be)
The only persons who can give that answer here on LUGNET as it is
constituted today are Todd and Suz... the other admins do not have the
authority to pass judgement on policy or administrative matters, they're
empowered only to help with db and code and so forth.
Let me not be seen as denigrating that, it's important help and it's great
that they're helping, but Suz and Todd (mostly Suz now, I think) are the
decision makers... At least, as I understand it anyway, based on
conversations with some of them about what they can and cannot do.
Suz has said precisely one thing... she doesn't want to hear about it. If
LUGNET were a government, that wouldn't fly. Citizens have the right to
expect governments to act on accusations of wrongdoing. Even if that act is
to dismiss the charges, it's still a formal closure.
LUGNET of course is *not* a government. Nor is it a corporation with
shareholders and a board. We have no rights to due process and no
expectation of any outcome in particular. Suz rules by fiat (taking opinion
into account, of course) and that has in fact worked quite well, usually.
Scott made a very grave accusation: that my violations of the ToS were
serious enough that I should be banned. That accusation has never been
withdrawn. It SHOULD be answered by the administration, but I am expecting
that it won't be. That's bad for the community, in my view, as it reduces
the sense that even though it's ruled by fiat, it's a good fiat that gets to
right answers.
I made a very grave accusation as well: that Scott's general behaviour is
such that he's not worthy of membership and he should be banned.
I'm withdrawing that call for banishment here and now. Not because I think
it's not valid (it is, and he *should* be gone) but rather because sometimes
the best thing to do with charges that aren't going to be properly pressed
is to drop them and move on.
But Scott has not withdrawn his call and it has not been ruled on. Do with
that what you will.
FUT admin.general
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | For the Eyes of Alfred Speredelozzi
|
| Alfred: What would possess you to bring this topic up after the approx. 20 days the thread has been dead? Your suggestion to Larry has been made by others ad nauseam. Everyone here can be expected to act in accord with their own wishes. No one is (...) (23 years ago, 17-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
