|
|
 | | Re: Defining some written consequences for transgressions of T&C
|
| (...) Ahh. Yes. This is for the annoying kind of stuff and the illegal really bad stuff needs that reservation...thanks. (...) I meant for that to be covered under "requiring a response of acknowledgment of receipt." I guess if someone didn't (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | Re: Defining some written consequences for transgressions of T&C
|
| (...) Yes, it's nice & clean. There's only thing I would recommend doing/adding: 1: stressing (somewhere) that these are 'typical' responses & general procedure, but that LUGNET reserves the right to bypass these guidelines in extreme cases. (If, (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | Defining some written consequences for transgressions of T&C
|
| One thing that the Discussion Group Terms & Conditions here lacks is any predefined list of actions to be taken if someone commits a transgression of the T&C. Here is a proposal... This is not active site policy but instead a proposal for a future (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
| (...) agreeing that it was, in addition to being a flog, a brag. IMHO. IOW, brag + flog != flog Not that that makes it any better or worse. Just clarifying what I meant. ^^Todd (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
| (...) I suppose I wasn't totally clear in what I wrote earlier. Yes, I personally happen to feel that what (not ++, that's not part of his name)Lar wrote was a flog (IMHO), but I also added that I thought it was more brag than flog. To make an (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
|
