Subject:
|
Re: Why these news groups were created
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.suggestions
|
Date:
|
Fri, 24 Sep 2004 03:36:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4673 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Dan Boger wrote:
| |
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 01:43:58AM +0000, John wrote:
| |
That’s not the point. What are you saying? That because someone can
legally get married at age 16, adult content on LUGNET should be made
viewable by a 7 year old? Because a 17 year old knows about same-sex
relationships, a 10 year old should be allowed to view graphic
conservations about it?
|
Your whole argument seems to revolve around the idea that LUGNET will now
have, or already has, inappropriate “adult content” in the NG. If that is the
case, that’s a violation of the TOS:
(do not) Post or transmit any unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous,
defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, or indecent
information of any kind...
And it should be dealt with as such. But that’s not a good reason to change
the whole way the site works. Now, if you were advocating to change the TOS
to allow such content, that’s a different story - but I don’t think you are
advocating that?
So the whole discussion should assume that the TOS is followed. And if it is,
where’s the problem? As Dave said:
| |
| |
Let’s also not forget that as long as the TOS are followed, nothing
graphic will ever be posted in .LGBT, or anywhere on LUGNET, for
that matter.
|
Not true. Consider this recent exchange (notice LudiChris’s assertion that virtually
nothing is too graphic).
|
So if you think this is a TOS violation, why don’t you bring it up to the
Admins?
|
Please. Even the poster thought that the subject matter was getting
too blue(note his post
script), but the admin apparently
didn’t.
| |
Do you not think they would deal with it, if it actually is “vulgar,
pornographic... or indecent”?
|
Well, let’s be clear that the whole matter is entirely subjective anyhow...
| |
If they Admins disagree with you, though, then you can’t cite it as an example
of graphic discussion.
|
Well, therein lies my point. If the admins do not think that that is
pornographic, or vulgar, or indecent, then they may not think that much is.
Which leads one to question: with that view, is LUGNET kid-friendly? The admins
don’t want to play policeman every day. I know that there is a strong desire
not to censure and never to censor. Because frankly, TOS get violated
constantly and nothing is done about it. Consider
this post. Here the poster
calls an admitted gay person the epithet “homo”. That is certainly a TOS
violation. Now, you could say that he was being facetious, putting words into
someone else’s mouth. Well, that person’s name has been conveniently snipped,
but my name appears in the next sentence, as if those words were implied to be
mine, which could be taken as libel, which is a TOS violation.
But honestly, I don’t really care about all of that. All I am trying to do is
to look at LUGNET and consider its future as to what it is going to be, and how
it is going to look to the GP. Does LUGNET hope to grow, to reach out and
bring in new FOLs into the fold, or maintain, for the most part, the status quo
among current users. And if LUGNET wants to grow, how will it appear to the
newcomer? Will it appear squeaky clean, like, say, LEGO.com, or will it have an
adult-edge to it: mostly safe for kids but not always, and primarily aimed at
adults.
That’s all I’m asking. Because I believe that there is now too much play
between the TOS and violations, with little or no desire or time on the part of
the admins to police them (and certainly no desire or time on the part of AFOLs
to whistleblow), leaving inappropriate adult content in full public view on a
supposedly kid-friendly site. I don’t blame the admins for not wanting to take
the time to deal with such matters, and so I’m simply offering a solution that
would enhance the adult experience of LUGNET, and the kid one as well.
JOHN
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) Your whole argument seems to revolve around the idea that LUGNET will now have, or already has, inappropriate "adult content" in the NG. If that is the case, that's a violation of the TOS: (do not) Post or transmit any unlawful, threatening, (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
151 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
