 | | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) What part of the TOU is ambiguous? It says "It is a condition of your use of the discussion groups that you do not: (X)" - meaning that if you do X then you may not be allowed to use the discussion groups. Are there any other parts of the TOU (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Possibly prohibited. I don't see it that way, even without clarification (...) I saw the cite the last time, thanks. I do appreciate the re-citation just in case I didn't see it (although I responded directly to it), but I think the quote of (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) snip (...) I was referring to the fact that FTX and images within posts are prohibited by the (URL) TOU>. A reasonable person who has been posting to LUGNET for years might know that the TOU is badly out of date and no longer reflects reality. (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Seems to me like it might be a good idea. Probably ought to go on the list of things to look into post code freeze and I'll so recommend. (...) I think that might be a bit strongly worded... "remiss" sounds so pejorative. (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) We have not developed one. Hopefully there won't really be a need but if there is, (that is, if someone gets timed out and then sends a note to the admins contesting the decision) we would either look at it again, ad-hoc, or develop one. We (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) If they don't receive a note because of an inadvertant TOS violation (forgetting to update their email), is there an email address they can contact you (collectively) on? If so, that email should probably be included on the 441 message page. (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Agreed. There are a number of relatively small things that need clarification, revision, expansion or elaboration. But I think these are all at the margins, the main thrust is clear. (...) I scratched my head about this for a bit, as I wasn't (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
Admins - Thanks for posting this outside of .admin so that everyone sees it. The Terms of Use need to be updated to reflect this new policy as well as some other changes. For example, both your post and my reply are against the TOU: 8. (do not) Post (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Yes, I know. But Todd has been notably absent from LUGNET, and Suz completely so, for quite some time and anarchy has prevailed. Hopefully this new power to be wielded by the TT can do some good. (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Just out of curiosity, is there any sort of appeal process? For example, if Lar doesn't think that his hypothetical 24-hour Timeout is appropriate, can he request a review of the decision, or is the decision considered to have been reviewed (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) As do I, but realistically, it will need to happen at some point, as we've all seen increased instances where something like this will be necessary. I don't think the "threat" of a timeout is sufficient, the actuality of it will need to be (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) I believe that LUGNET should have this right as well. Almost every other usergroup or discussion board I read has the ability to ban posts from users or IPs. Administrators in some of these other boards do not seem to adhere to a (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) SNIP (...) I would like to thank the LUGNET Transition Team, those listed here as well as those not listed, for their continued efforts on behalf of the AFOL Community. I also hope that the mere mention of this new policy and consequences (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Sure, np - I wasn't trying to second-guess, just to guess what it was actually set to, since news-by-mail doesn't reflect that, and I wasn't feeling adventerous enough to look up the msg itself on the server. (...) Right, the process seems ok, (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Kelly set .terms on purpose, by the precedent that Suz set when she announced ((URL) the "New Policy on Bickering in LUGNET Newsgroups", not by mistake. I've reset the FUT there to keep things together (there is already another followup there) (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
