 | | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) The part that questions whether FTX is allowed specifically. Images, as they appear in FTX are definitely ALLOWED by that rule, because you are not posting a binary image, as the TOU specifically indicates not to do, you are posting a URL to (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) I'd say it's a matter of intent. "Smack" and banter = OK, so long as it's clear to smacker and smackee that it's all in fun, not a serious slam. And as long as it's not scatalogical or profane (remember, that's what email's for!) I wouldn't (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Um, as I understand it the truth is always a defense against charges of libel. So you should be OK. Or are you saying he's not actually those things? I get so confused. (1) More seriously, and this is a real problem that I don't know the real (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Keith Goldman wrote: <snip> (...) What????? These new rules mean that we can't lay down the smack??? K, I'm a changin' my vote! ;) Dave K (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
This could be the beginning of the end for me... "Making disparaging remarks about the personal integrity of others merely to make a point" So I can't call Soren Roberts the smelly village idiot, with all the integrity of a back-room pornographer? (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
