| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
<snip>
> Granted, there are lessons that can be taken, but endless debate (about specific
> reviewing actions) has proven (in many many other places, not just here) not to
> be useful. So when, for example, some discussion of a reviewing action occurs,
> at some point you are going to see an admin remind the community that the
> decision was taken and that decision can't be undone and the debate isn't going
> to change the fact that it was decided that way in the past because you can't
> change the past.
>
> Do you agree that's valid?
>
> "We are not going to debate" might not be the best phrasing but that's the
> important idea to convey. How would you phrase it differently?
Nicely said, Larry. However, wouldn't you agree that, in specific instances
(especially as we've seen recently) that there needs to be debate, especially
since if there's a perceived injustice by the rulemakers and the rule enforcers?
I mean, not to bring up the excellent example of 'taxation without
representation', but if the rule makers and rule enforcers cannot be held
accountable for their making and enforcing of rules by the citzens, then where
are we, as the citizens? Are we just suppose to be subject to the rules without
recourse?
"
"We are not going to debate" might not be the best phrasing but that's the
important idea to convey
"
And I'm saying that if the LPRV committee or the admin team really thinks that
this should be a tenant--a footing of the way LUGNET"s going to be run--that the
community discusisng perceived injustices is basically irrelevant, then we, as a
community, are serfs, peons, whatever. Is that what you are trying to convey?
How would you phrase it differently?
Dave K
-Has anyone else noticed that the first two letters of the LPRV team are
someone's initials? ;)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
45 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
