|
|
 | | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
| Uhh - I've been seeing that != in a couple of posts. Would some tech jargon junkie remind me what it means? -- Cheers ... Geoffrey Hyde "Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:3aa4059f.183521...net.com... (...) was (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | Re: Defining some written consequences for transgressions of T&C
|
| (...) As an evolution of the idea, how about something like an "insurance points" system where transgressions earn you points, and time takes them away. I would hate to see someone who was a real jerk as a kid make it to 4th offense, and then come (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
| (...) <snip> I'm confused here, I sincerely meant my lead as a thank you to Rose, and I took your "I'll second that" as just that, an agreement and your own thanks as well. What am I missing here? Why would you think anyone would mistake what you (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
| (...) (Responding to my own post.) YIKES -- it just occurred to me that what I wrote above might be mistaken as a condemnation of what Rose did. On the contrary, I actually meant it as a _complement_ to Rose. I thanked Rose this morning via private (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | Re: Defining some written consequences for transgressions of T&C
|
| (...) I always found (when I did this for a living) that automatically suspending service for a non-response worked wonders. And that was for internet service in general. Waiting 24 hours for a response, then suspending service until a response came (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | 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)
|
|
