 | | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) The ability to give time outs has been there (and has been used, in rare cases) for a long time. What has changed is the process for doing so and who is authorised to do it. (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
Finally! Good move. Should've been done long ago. Hopefully this will restore civility to LUGNET. (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
LUGNET administration has always had the ability to temporarily or permanently suspend the posting privileges of a user or member. In the past this has been only very rarely used. The mechanism for doing so was such that only Todd (or for a time, (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.announce, lugnet.general, FTX) !!
|
| |
| | Re: SWM AFOL in Boston seeking SF
|
|
(...) Ahh, but Leonard - you missed the point. I never said it did not belong on Lugnet, and I never said it did not belong in .people - did I? (...) I think you are also missing the entire point of Lugnet and posting messages to Lugnet -- Lugnet it (...) (20 years ago, 27-Sep-04, to lugnet.people.singles, lugnet.admin.suggestions, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: SWM AFOL in Boston seeking SF
|
|
(...) Ahh, but Mark.. you missed the charter of lugnet.people: "lugnet.people– All about LEGO® people (enthusiasts, fans, maniacs, collectors, builders, etc.)" And since Todd is clearly a "LEGO people" - any post about Todd should be on-topic for (...) (20 years ago, 26-Sep-04, to lugnet.people.singles, lugnet.admin.suggestions, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: SWM AFOL in Boston seeking SF
|
|
(...) Todd, As much as I wish you luck on your search - can you explain why this does not belong in off-topic? I draw your attention to the group charter of off-topic: "Off-topic (non-LEGO®) discussions" - this is what your post was, non-LEGO® (...) (20 years ago, 26-Sep-04, to lugnet.people.singles, lugnet.admin.suggestions, lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Profanity again
|
|
(...) Perhaps we could have implictly undestord code word substitutes for certain rude words. For example blasphous exclaimations could be replaced by "MegaBlok" and of couese, the word in question by "bley" (also a four letters) or the alternative (...) (20 years ago, 13-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Profanity again
|
|
(...) LOL Fat chance with Richard hopping about. ROSCO (20 years ago, 9-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Profanity again
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) Rats! I was just nuking the popcorn and getting comfy in my Laz-E-boy, preparing myself for the 'entertaining posts' to come... ;p Admins, you're doing a bang-up job. Thankfully, from what (...) (20 years ago, 9-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Profanity again
|
|
(...) Not *that* passionate, in my view and in the view of the other admins as stated here: (URL) I'm not advocating usage of profanity in (...) Dave subsequently requested a cancel of the post, and reposted without the profanity. As for John's use (...) (20 years ago, 9-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Profanity again
|
|
(...) And whereas I'd agree on a moral ground, having been a person who doesn't like to use profanity in everyday discourse, I do think that things said in o.t-d can get a little passionate. I'm not advocating usage of profanity in every post, but, (...) (20 years ago, 9-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Profanity again
|
|
Looks like the problem has returned: (URL) Dave! could have made this comment in a more appropriate manner. Besides, John could have meant "frick'n" instead of the other f-word. Adr. (20 years ago, 9-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | profanity
|
|
(...) I can live without the profanity. Scott A (20 years ago, 17-Aug-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad Ventura goes to Brickfest
|
|
(...) (URL) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad Ventura goes to Brickfest
|
|
(...) I don't nkow how to change it, that's why I didn't. If you could tell me how... (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Tente-a-plenty!
|
|
(...) I fully agree with Dave!. Keep all the clone info inside OT.Clones rather than holding too strict to the TOS and making things un-smooth. If it's that bad to post a non-market group (hey, it's worked just fine for ages!), then why not create a (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jun-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Tente-a-plenty!
|
|
(...) It's certainly something that can be discussed. The Lugnet transition team will be exploring this issue some. Todd and Suzanne had expressed a desire for all market posting to occur in the lugnet.market hierarchy, but there has long been (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Tente-a-plenty!
|
|
(...) I know that this is correct by the letter of the TOS, but can we put it to a vote, at least? I think both purists and clone-fans alike would be well served to allow clone auction info in OT.Clones, rather than letting them get lost in the (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Tente-a-plenty!
|
|
(...) Please confine auction announcements to lugnet.market.auction per (URL) the Terms of Use> (See Discussion Group Terms and Conditions item #11). Auctions of clone brand products are allowed in lugnet.market.auction so long as they are (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) I agree. But under the circumstances what else could I do? Scott A (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Me too. Where are we, anyhow? I don't think I've ever been here before. (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) The day after I said I'd check out the FUT and I didn't. Eh, whatever. For my money, forwarding things out of o-t.d to 'admin-whatever' is much like running to the teacher on the playground during recess--Getting the 'grown up' figure to (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) This is the point where debating loses its 'joy' for me. Can we please leave the 'directed at specific individuals' and the 'could be misconstrued but I'll take it in the worst posible way' attacks out of o-t.d (though I'm sure someone'll dig (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
Can anyone tell me exactly what this is achieving? Is there any sort of aim to these attacks on me? Is this “constructive” Don? Should I just ignore him? Is his behavior acceptable? Is he obsessed by me? Should I be flattered by the attention? (URL) (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) You called me a liar. All I'm asking is that you either justify that or apologise. It is that simple; it is a matter of etiquette. This is the last time I intend to ask. (...) Have you read your posts over the last 48 hours? At one point 7 out (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote: (snip) I explained what happened, I admitted fault, and I apologised for it. If it doesn't fit the format of the apology you want, or doesn't fit the facts as you imagine them to be, tough. Take it or (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: ------( Terms of use for lugnet.com )------
|
|
Emmmm .... un'anima buona che lo traduca in italiano? grazie ... Giuliano (21 years ago, 13-Jan-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | over the edge
|
|
Personally, I think the language used in this post is over the edge of what should be tolerated. (URL) post may be cancelled by the time anyone is a postion of authority reads this, but the f-word is being used rather blatently. Ray (21 years ago, 19-Nov-03, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Getting the Newness Out;-)
|
|
(...) XFUT to admin.terms Changing people's FTX code can apparently be done without it being detectable (in the web interface), unless you do a reply or view original/raw form to see the underlying FTX. (an eyeball view of John's original post and (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.test, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Spam
|
|
(...) No, it certainly doesn't. The reason it got in is because it came in through the lego-robotics@crynwr.com mailing list gateway, and LUGNET's news server trusts the mail gateway not to forward spam. Russell has a sign-up filter (or something) (...) (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Matrix:Reloaded " & "X2 :X-Men United" available in DVD now
|
|
(...) Hm. Something tells me this doesn't belong here. Of course, as long as it is, I figured I'd have a little fun with it. I suspect my version will be received a bit more graciously than the original... (21 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Which is it; time machine or plagiarism?
|
|
(...) his work. I (...) Well let's hope the Gaston Gazette does not find out. ;) (...) I must be paranoid; I thought it was I who was being baited. But, I admit, I should not have responded. :( Scott A (22 years ago, 25-Mar-03, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Which is it; time machine or plagiarism?
|
|
(...) Plagarism is not; copyright infringement is. (...) Scott, I advise you to please stop baiting Larry eand to read this as well: (URL) (22 years ago, 25-Mar-03, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Which is it; time machine or plagiarism?
|
|
(...) Sinner: repent ye because ye have sinned! The "sin": Larry [2003]: (URL) someone observed to Winston Churchill that his predecessor as prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, was a humble man, Churchill is reported to have replied, "And he has so (...) (22 years ago, 25-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Would I be incorrect?
|
|
(...) I am not in disagreement with what you say Frank. I had to do a bit of thinking and reading group charters before I offered my suggestion. Personally, if I were trying to sell something I would not want the announcement lost in Off-Topic (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Would I be incorrect?
|
|
(...) Hmm, this is one of the things which needs to be clarified. Recent direction has suggested that all buy/sell/trade/auction traffic occur in the market groups (and org groups as specifically allowed by charter). I went looking for discussion on (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Would I be incorrect?
|
|
(...) Reference: (URL) for asking before posting. At this time, the Charter for market.buy-sell-trade does not allow for non-Lego items. However, you can trade all kinds of goods in exchange for Lego. The group ot-clones has been set up to (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Advertising on lugnet
|
|
(...) How 'bout a .robotics.ads or .robotics.buy-sell-trade? :-) TJ (22 years ago, 31-Oct-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Advertising on lugnet
|
|
(...) It might also help to initiate discussion within the group. .robotics is effectively an external group, and to some extent should set it's own charter (of course if it sets a direction which is incompatible with Lugnet then it might be time to (...) (22 years ago, 31-Oct-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Advertising on lugnet
|
|
(...) It's not my place to say for sure, but I don't think so. I know Suz is very busy right now (weddings and their aftermath tend to do that) and may just not have had a chance to fire off a note. As I said in my last reply, I think perhaps (...) (22 years ago, 31-Oct-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
