Subject:
|
Re: for the eyes of Suz (Was Re: For the Eyes of Alfred Speredelozzi
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 Dec 2001 09:10:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
630 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> (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 Unless that call is withdrawn, some answer ought to be given (perhaps after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 a small delay to see if it *will* be withdrawn) that is substantive and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 withdrawn.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.
For the record, I am looking for no further answer. The issue is closed as
far as I am concerned.
> 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.
I have just realised how much I have enjoyed not noticing you over the past
couple of weeks. I am rather disappointed, and I must admit surprised, that
you have came back with the same tone of massages you left with.
Hopefully this thread will end here.
Best wishes
Scott A
>
> But Scott has not withdrawn his call and it has not been ruled on. Do with
> that what you will.
>
> FUT admin.general
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
