Subject:
|
Re: Why these news groups were created
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.suggestions
|
Date:
|
Sun, 26 Sep 2004 04:47:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5854 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, David Laswell wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, John Neal wrote:
| |
How do you know this? Are you only considering members or posters?
|
The ages I’ve seen posted by LUGNET users generally range in the 18+ range,
but a few have posted ages in the 13-18 group, and a few others have posted
in the under-13 group (I can think of at least one person from each of the
non-adult age groups).
| |
What about all of the people who use LUGNET as an online resource?
|
Well, if they’re only reading LUGNET, and never actually leaving footprints
on it, there’s really no way to tally their age demographic.
|
Exactly. Hundreds if not thousands are directed to LUGNET via word of mouth (at
train shows alone). What would they care about topics not relating to LEGO?
| |
| |
And BTW, membership on LUGNET is most certainly not “free”.
|
I meant free-political, not free-economic. I can see how that could be read
either way, though.
| |
| |
Putting stricter systems in place to restrict and censor the tone of
conversation in so-called “on-topic” areas is as likely to drive users away
as it is to make parents somehow see an improvement in kid-safeness.
|
That is purely opinion with no basis on fact.
|
Really? There have already been those who have quit over the formation of
the LGBT group and the new/old color arguments.
|
Quit? Rescinded their memberships? How do you know that?
| |
There are also those who
have repeatedly toed the line of decorum (John even claimed that there are a
number of people who constantly violate the TOS with no repercusions).
|
I said the TOS were constantly violated, not that any particular group was doing
the violating.
| |
New
restrictions and censorship will not be welcomed with open arms by every
single member, and there is a very real possibility that people would quit if
they were put in place.
| |
But you are ignoring the converse benefit-- that OT groups would then be
able to relate as adults without the fear of being inappropriate around
younger FOLs. The statement “We are all adults here” will finally be true.
There is a great desire, I believe, for many AFOLs to be able to relate to
other AFOLs on a strictly adult basis-- NO KIDS.
|
There are a lot of people who have expressed their preference to relate to
other FOLs as adults, but not necessarily restricted to AFOLs.
|
On-topic or off-topic? I think everyone wants to relate with everyone
on-topic, but I was specifically referring to off-topic.
| |
It has been
noted on more than one occassion that there are a number of TFOLs and KFOLs
who are mature enough to pass as adults,
while there are also a number of
AFOLs who are not. On paper, an age limit might seem the most sensible
determiner, but in practice, maturity is what really matters, and there’s not
an objective and unbiased way to regulate that.
|
There will always be exceptions; no system is going to be perfect, as the
current system is imperfect-- currently allowing inappropriate material already
posted on LUGNET to be accessed by children.
| |
| |
So far, this type of exclusive interaction has not been made available on
LUGNET. What if that is the type of LUGNET experience I want? Who
cares about that? Because so far, it is only been the illusion of it.
|
Do you really want that, or are you just playing devil’s advocate?
|
Absolutely I want it!
| |
I can see
a legitimate argument for walling off some groups (primarily .o-t.d, but not
.o-t.c-b/g/f/t or any of the .people groups)
|
My standard was whether or not a particular group was on-topic or off-topic.
| |
based on the idea that they
are already inappropriate for kids, but I wouldn’t want to see an area set up
where things are pointedly allowed to get more out of hand than they already
do. Think about it. What sorts of things would be more permissible in an
R-rated section? Graphic sexual content?
|
Already happens.
| |
If I was here to see that, I’d be
surfing porn sites instead. Vulger language or violent outbursts? What’s
the sense in setting up an adults-only area so adults can act in a completely
childish manner?
|
Already happens.
| |
| |
So, because we can’t make the entire net safe, we shouldn’t try to make it
safe at all. Sorry, don’t buy it.
|
No, what I’m saying is that since we can’t make the entire internet safe, we
shouldn’t pretend we’re making this little section of it safe unless we’re
actually accomplishing what we’re claiming to have done. To date, there is
no foolproof means of sorting out the adults from the minors,
|
Dude. You just use the age 18. That maturity levels may vary is specious.
| |
so no area of
LUGNET should be set up to allow more inappopriate exchanges to take place.
|
So all of LUGNET is protentially open for inappropriate exchanges to take
place.
| |
| |
| |
You’ve been the most vocal opponent of the formation of an LGBT group,
which, regardless of whether it’s true or not, pretty much makes this look
like a further attempt to suppress the LGBT minority by shutting them
behind closed doors.
|
Please don’t single them out because you know that that is not what I am
saying.
|
Really? So you’re proposing that the discussion of clone brands, geek
topics, fun stuff, puns, kids, and teens, as well as the ability to do test
posts should be locked off securely away from where they could possibly warp
the minds of children everywhere? Sorry, don’t buy it.
|
Only because they are off-topic for LEGO. .test should go under admin I
think.
| |
If you want .o-t.d
locked off from underaged viewers, just concentrate on that one group. Don’t
try to lump all of .o-t and .people in with it.
So you still haven’t presented any legitimate reasons why they shouldn’t be
allowed access to the .LGBT group.
|
Because there is no compelling reason why kids would come to LUGNET for anything
other than to talk about LEGO.
| |
The only two strong arguments you’ve come
up with are that LGBT=Sin
|
Please cite where I have made that argument (good luck).
| |
(which falls kinda flat in the face of scientific
evidence suggesting that homosexuality is a physiological state, not a
choice) and that the .LGBT group will be chock full of inappropriate graphic
sexual content (which has thus far proven not to be true).
|
In your opinion. And it doesn’t merely need to be “graphic”.
| |
| |
Really? Transgendered kids? Never heard of it myself.
|
Yes, really. Being transgendered doesn’t require surgery or hormone
treatment. All it requires is a strong desire to be a member of the opposite
sex. I met someone at college who says he’s felt like he should have been
born a girl since early childhood. He feels strongly enough about it to
refer to his gender as a birth defect.
|
Your anecdotal evidence notwithstanding, I still don’t believe it.
| |
| |
| |
It’s been pretty well established that you are in the minority in your
assumption that a simple statement of sexual orientation equates with
publishing Penthouse Letters,
|
Even if that were true, are you saying that that view doesn’t deserve
respect?
|
No, it doesn’t, but you should still be free to put your own foot in your own
mouth.
|
How is your intolerance any different than your accusations against others?
| |
| |
| |
and that the TOS prohibit posting the graphic descriptions that you can’t
seem to stop seeing in your head.
|
Helloooo?? For the Nth time, it’s not about me, Dave.
|
When you started protesting the formation of an LGBT group, one of your main
points was that graphic sexual content has no place here, and that merely
admitting homosexuality must needs conjure up images of what goes on in their
bedrooms. None of the rest of us seem to have that problem, which means that
that is indeed all about you.
|
It’s not necessarily that I conjure images in my head, it’s the deliberate
intention of GLBT FOLs for me to relate to them as GLBT FOLs. It’s not that I
think it should remain a secret, but just not be the very first thing I know
about that person. Classic example: rainbow bumper stickers on cars (“you don’t
know this driver from Adam or Steve, but he/she is GAY!”). Or closer to home:
Teddy’s lavender brick sig.
| |
| |
Would you give me a break? LUGNET isn’t about providing support for
victims, it’s about LEGO. LEGO Users Group Network.
|
It’s about LEGO Users. That’s the whole “community” angle popping up there.
|
So is it a “whole community”, or a community of communities?
| |
| |
If someone wants to start a LUG for lgbters, they should DO it, and not
pretend that there is anything magical about a simple subgroup on LUGNET!
|
Maybe they will. Maybe they should. It’d make it a lot harder for people to
justify ostracizing them from the community.
| |
None of those people, AFAIK, exist. And if they do, then I’m sorry, that’s
the way it is. But you don’t seem to be shedding any tears for those who’d
like LUGNET to be strictly about LEGO. Their views don’t seem to matter,
and so your compassion for the disenfranchised rings hollow to me.
|
They’ve still got skip-filters.
|
And GLBT have places other than LUGNET to congregate.
| |
And, theoretically, the discretion to stay
out of any threads that obviously don’t pertain directly to the LEGO
experience. So no, I’m not shedding any tears for them. It’s not like
they’re being forced to read every message that they might find
objectionable, and expecting them to be able to excercise common sense is not
placing an unfair burden on them (one would think the fact that various
groups have been placed in the .off-topic group would be bells, whistles,
and blinking warning signs enough to get that point across). Not like
forbidding LGBTs to ever even mention the fact that they live a different
lifestyle would be on LGBTs.
|
What I am thinking about is how LUGNET appears to the outside world. I want
LUGNET to be all about LEGO to the outside GP, and all about whatever the
members want on the inside.
| |
| |
Why would you suppose that? Are you implying that LUGNET is inhabited by
people who are only friendly for fear of violating TOS? ?
|
No, I’m implying that having a section that’s pointedly off-limits to minors
leans a bit more towards unfriendly than friendly. And I’m stating it
outright, so I’m not really implying it, either.
|
It really depends upon how you look at it.
JOHN
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) The ages I've seen posted by LUGNET users generally range in the 18+ range, but a few have posted ages in the 13-18 group, and a few others have posted in the under-13 group (I can think of at least one person from each of the non-adult age (...) (20 years ago, 25-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
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
|
|
|
|
