To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.suggestionsOpen lugnet.admin.suggestions in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / Suggestions / 1171
1170  |  1172
Subject: 
Re: Censorship (was Re: Bye, bye LUGNET)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.suggestions
Date: 
Tue, 1 Mar 2005 22:26:25 GMT
Viewed: 
4028 times
  
In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
Forgot to answer this portion in previous post...

In lugnet.general, Orion Pobursky wrote:
The thing is that some long standing Lugnet members are getting very upset about
getting threatening email regarding what may have been a comment in passing.
This fact alone should tell you that something might be wrong with the way
things are done.

I think we'd all agree the current process is inherently inefficient and
completely human-driven, and appears somewhat arbitrary. Nobody is arguing that
something far better needs to be implemented. Before we do that, we need to
define what SHOULD be done.

If we were to slap a filter in place, that's still "censorship" in people's eyes
and that's the core problem some people seem to have. But if we allow uncensored
language, it creates an atmosphere that's different from what (I believe) is
ultimately wanted here at LUGNET - and I'm sure we'd quietly lose many other
people who just don't want to be around it.

Having had extensive experience with word filters at BZPower, even with the
lengths some people will go to to get around them, I do think that some sort of
replacement filter (at least for the web view) is a good idea. Obviously that
will still spark outrage among people who are dead set against having their
pearls of wisdom altered in any way, but it would level the playing field and
would be quantifiable and even-handed.

I agree that a language filter is a valid approch to this issue as long as the
original, unfiltered post is available and, much like the skip filter now, the
language filter is a user settable option (i.e. on by default but off if the
user wants).  I think this approach is probably about as close as you can get to
satisfying both sides.

-Orion



Message is in Reply To:
  Censorship (was Re: Bye, bye LUGNET)
 
Forgot to answer this portion in previous post... (...) I think we'd all agree the current process is inherently inefficient and completely human-driven, and appears somewhat arbitrary. Nobody is arguing that something far better needs to be (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)

3 Messages in This Thread:


Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR