 | | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
