 | | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) I don't think we have one of those. If we do, I don't know where it is. If I were pressed to name everyone that ever got a timeout, it would be from memory and incomplete. I don't know that we need one, though. (...) I don't think you have one (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Yeah, now that I think about it, I guess that makes sense. But does a Timeout go on one's "permanent record?" If not, then a 72-hour appeal process wouldn't be of much use against a 24-hour Timeout. But if a Timeout does remain as a blot on my (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) I think part of the reason why is that an appeal process would probably take longer than a suspension in the first place. Most suspensions would be in the range of 24 hrs to 72 hrs (1 day - 3 days) - and an appeal process (which would require (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Hey Marc, I see that you have been reading my posts. Any particular reason why you refuse to acknowledge the facts and you refuse to stop insulting both myself, and the admins of CSF and CC? And to put those quotes in context: "I respond to (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Marc Nelson, Jr. wrote: <snip> (...) In situations such as these, I often consult 'the oracle'... Judge Payton: "Judges are bound to interpret the Constitution within the strict parameters of the text itself. The Constitution (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
