 | | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
Could you guys please start a new thread with all this feces? It seems this thread has fallen victim to name-calling and the other normal antics... Back on topic. Evey decently large community has a members' association. I bet a few of you who live (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Sounds like the double standard again. I was called to town for asking users to respect Admins, and everyone said there is no way to police whether people respect us or not. And now you're trying to call Larry out because he doesn't respect (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Is saying someone wigged out a personal attack? Is it beaving to a different standard? DOesn't sound like you are unpholdin' to you own rules. You commiteed to do better. Kevin (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Is that really a problem? I agree at some point *you* may wish to stop arguing, but why ask everyone else to? I think the problem with saying "The decision stands, we don't see the point of people discussing further" (or in fact ANY way of (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Well, as long as it was Scott, it was easy enough to disregard. It was just Scott, after all, noted button pusher. But when we get this mistrust from people we used to respect before they wigged out, or people we still do want to respect for (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Yeah, I don't believe this. The LPRV is a great example. The Admins gathered a group of people and said, we trust you guys! We want to know what you think! And then, seemingly out of nowhere, they started accusing the Admins of creating a (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Wow. You're right Ross, that is worded much better. That reminds me, I probably shouldn't be posting this right now without my lawyer being present. There might be some minor misunderstanding that prompts endless accusations at my character (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Why not? It was my point, that without someone saying "We've listened, we've considered it carefully, we worked our process and we worked our review process, and we don't at this time see a need to change this particular reviewing action, and (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) Possibly. (...) Because it's representative. A committee of review, appointed by an appointed committee, may, in spite of good intentions, not be representative. Cheers Richie Dulin (21 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET members association
|
|
(...) I think that is irrelevant here so I will not agree or disagree. (...) That's all fine, given that the ToU says "reason X will result in a timeout of 48 hours". However, I doubt the ToU will ever cover every possible reason for timeout, and a (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
