 | | Re: Murfle?
|
|
[snip] Thanks for the positive feedback, Janey. -Suz (18 years ago, 4-Apr-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Murfle?
|
|
(...) It's as the others in this thread said. The "murfling" was done in the past. It's not something being done on posts right now. If it were to be adopted, I'm sure users would be notified. I don't know why they were not before the act was (...) (19 years ago, 1-Apr-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Murfle?
|
|
(...) Many parts snipped out, just to shorten things up. You made some great points and reminded my why I continue to return to Lugnet, and thank you for taking the time to respond so throughly. (...) Yes, totally. Both of those issues concern me a (...) (19 years ago, 31-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Murfle?
|
|
(...) quick answers: (...) no. (...) not yet. (...) no. At least, not a different one. 'updating' would probably be good though. (...) completely understandable. I agree. (...) is it the lack of clarity then? potential for abuse? ..? (...) I (...) (19 years ago, 31-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) I really can't see why this is so difficult to understand, Eric. No-one had a problem with it when you first released it because it came under 'fair use' and you weren't trying to make money out of it. It wasn't a coincidence that concerns (...) (19 years ago, 31-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) Yes. What do you propose is done about it? Let it go? Again? How many times should it be let go before he is held accountable? (...) 'Gang of trolls'? I speak for no-one but myself. Look, Eric is the problem here, Lar. There's been plenty of (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms) !
|
| |
| | Re: Murfle?
|
|
For the record: There is no point in being concerned that something new is being imposed. That post was first murfled a long time ago. I know that to be the case, because I did it. It may have been unmurfled/murfled a few times since, or not, I have (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms) !
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) Hmmm, well lets list this so-called "Gang of trolls" shall we? (In no particular order) (URL) Timothy Gould> (URL) Soren Roberts> (URL) Mark Neumann> (URL) David Koudys> (URL) Jeff Stembel> (URL) Keith Goldman> (URL) Bryce McGlone> (URL) (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Murfle?
|
|
(...) The way Lugnet is built, any changes like murlfing or editting of one's post and including FTX format, won't work in NNTP. Back when I'd chat with Todd often, I'd give him ideas on improvements to Lugnet's software, and many of those ideas (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Murfle?
|
|
(...) The murfle concept was originally thought up way back when we had an Admin team. I forget who had the idea, but Todd named it (it has that sort of Todd flare to it). The concept was exactly as Tim described it - a compromise between (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Murfle?
|
|
(...) ...snip... (...) ...snip... (...) I might be speaking out of turn, but it's my understanding that for testing purposes, some of the posts that were very clearly out of bounds of the ToS were murfled during the development of this function. I (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Murfle?
|
|
(...) It seems to me the message remains the same on the NNTP server, and more importantly the search index, so searching for any word in the original post will retrieve it. In fact, searching for one of the known "questionable" words in the post (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) I listen to Larry. I offer this: Please excuse my perceived auction spam. Respect my follow up and my intentions not to get carried away. Rather understand I feel must reach a core audience that may not have known about it otherwise. As for (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Murfle?
|
|
(...) Tim, I agree, to a point, I don't really care if LUGNET decides that "murflement" is THEIR answer. I don't know Suz or Todd, to any great degree aside from having the pleasure of meeting them both, but I feel I have conversed with Todd enough (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Murfle?
|
|
It's also curious that a search for "murfl" turns up nothing. Still, I think it's a good idea to rein in some of the meanness... (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) Hi Lar, My problem here is that Eric is entirely unrepentant of his own bad behaviour. He needs to be made to see that what he did was wrong. Many people have tried the polite approach to him on this and other topics, others (myself included (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) Yep. To summarise, Eric's in the wrong regarding posting auctionspam, and regarding using material of others without permission, and you and your gang of trolls are using that as an excuse to be disruptive, make fun of him, and egg him on (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms) !
|
| |
| | Re: Murfle?
|
|
(...) I think it's a good compromise solution. It is still possible to see the original message but it requires action rather than accident. People are not meant to swear on Lugnet and if they don't pull their message then I think this is a fair (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) NO - it is NOT fun. SOMEBODY be the bigger man and just walk away, please. Mark LUGNET member 1634 (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Murfle?
|
|
Curious, I just happened to have this brought to my attention, (URL) and forgive me if this has been announced or discussed, but is this a new "feature" of Lugnet, and will we be seeing more of this in the future? Janey "Red Brick" (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.terms) !!
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) Mark deserves a proper answer, as do the many people who have raised perfectly valid concerns only to have you either ignore them or post nonsense, if not outright abuse in response. (...) Another non-response. If it's still too complicated (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) Reasoning in reverse. Morose. Who asked you? (...) I fully expect rablerousers like you to peep up. (...) The more you pay attention to my stuff, the more I make you my bitches. You know that saying? You should, you have been doing it well for (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) Then perhaps you should've responded to (URL) this> with something other than "eh heh." What kind of way is that to treat a 'buddy'? (...) Thoughts entering your head do seem to be a rare occurrence. The fact is it was your duty to check first (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) hi, Tim. (...) Unrepentant to people who have axes to grind with me? Not likely. If you can understand that, then perhaps you'll start to get it. (...) That is a relative circumstance, not a direct officiality in anyway. As much love as I have (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) Eric, Given the number of people complaining about your actions I would say you broke both the letter and the spirit of the 'law'. Is it comradery to do something that annoys many other people and be completely unrepentant about it? Is it (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms) !
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
Tim, there is such a divide when it comes to the Letter of the Law and Spirit of the Law. The letter of the law is influential, no doubt, however the greater challenge is for us to embrace the spirit of comradery. As for others, libelous slander is (...) (19 years ago, 30-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
Dear Mark, (...) When have I flamed or trolled Eric on lugnet? I have flamed him once on jlug where flaming is allowed but only after he was rude to me. (...) I'm not really seeing your point here Mark unless you think I would like to turn lugnet (...) (19 years ago, 29-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) Small correction here - the "You" at the front of that sentence was supposed to be "People here". Not saying you (Tim) have not done it, but it has been done in great numbers by the group as a whole, and that is what I mean to convey. (19 years ago, 29-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) The point is when Eric did it there was a flame storm because of it and the first time had really the same result. So your defense that this is somehow ok because he has been told before is off. Flaming and trolling somebody for any reason is (...) (19 years ago, 29-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Brain Damage
|
|
(...) AND (...) AND (...) Careful with that axe, Eugene. Money Eclipse Wish You Were Here UmmaGumma Time? Shine On You Crazy Diamond "The Lunatic is on the grass"? "And when the cloudbursts thunder in your ear You shout and no-one seems to hear And (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Mr. Jeeves
|
|
(...) See that would have been better. Point well taken. (...) Though I do admit sitting down to build this model with the purposes of putting it up for sale. Perhaps that was just a little to much with the post. Still I have to try to get the model (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Mr. Jeeves
|
|
(...) Good solution. JOHN (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Mr. Jeeves
|
|
(...) Perhaps the best way if you want to announce a MOC and that it's for sale, is to announce the MOC in appropriate groups with no mention of the sale, then post a separate thread in .marketplace, referring to the MOC thread (or not, as you deem (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Mr. Jeeves
|
|
(...) Not at all. That you crossposted in .B-S-T is irrelevant (though that is THE appropriate place for that particular post). (...) Yeah, and that is what I meant about "clever posters". One can announce an MOC and talk about it and whatnot, and (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Mr. Jeeves
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, John Neal wrote: I thought if I included the Marketplace/sale/trade/ newsgroup I covered myself. Perhaps if I tried to tone it down a bit and just mention the model is for sale near the end of the post? I rather not have the (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf Find, and Insulting other people's friend's
|
|
(...) Egad. (URL) Time flies> JOHN (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Mr. Jeeves
|
|
(...) Perhaps a determining factor is who potentially stands to profit from the announcement-- the poster or the reader. (...) The key word is "implication". In this instance, his solicitation was in no uncertain terms-- the very reason for the (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf Find, and Insulting other people's friend's
|
|
(...) I find nothing wrong with Soren as a role model, and thank him for showing me how to make a mech. I'm well aware of the public facets of his character, and being 18, am quite self-posessed enough to choose what I allow to influence me. Do no (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
(...) I understand, Stefan. And I am sorry if I came down on you too hard. In light of your action, my faith in you is now restored:-) Leg Godt, JOHN (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Mr. Jeeves
|
|
(...) John- Are these "for sale" posts to be forbidden too? Every time someone posts a description of a new LEGO set including its price and specifying the first day of sale and even saying where to buy it? (Hmmm, let's also eliminate those Shop @ (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
(...) I never said it was an excuse. I was only offering an explanation to John. -Stefan- (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
(...) Luckily you have left yourself the option of removing or changing the images outside of Lugnet. Not having read the TOS is not really an excuse (a reason maybe), ignorance of the law does not give you carte blanche to break it. Tim (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: (was Brickshelf find:) DON'T STEAL PEOPLE'S IMAGES
|
|
(...) Corny! You corn ball. Take the time for me, there's that axe again. Soren, buddy, pal, neighbor, peer, dude, if Stefan looks up to you, this is the time to show him the error of his way. Bafoon! Not take time to dual with your arch nemesis. (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
(...) Not at all. Kev moderates 1,000s of images-- things do sneak through. (...) Examples? Without disciplinary action? (...) It's not my intention to button-push, but merely to point out that vulgar language is becoming more and more commonplace, (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
(...) lol Okaay, wrong guy to ask:-) (...) Thanks for the offer, but that isn't really my cup of tea. (...) Well, there's a fair chance the builder doesn't even speak English... (...) Really. And what do you suppose it is? (...) Honestly, I have no (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
(...) Actually, they're covered under fair use. The parody/satire clause, IIRC. (...) Because I'm not interested in a shitstorm. (...) I'd laugh my ass off. Besides, I've done far (URL) worse> (warning, really messed up adult content) than that (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
Moving back to admin.terms since this is not an off topic debate. The images do not *clearly* violate TOS if they have been moderated. Considering the size and obviousness of the lettering, it can't be argued that the admins didn't see it, and as (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
(...) But aren't those types of edits the right of the creator alone? (...) Why not? (...) No "crime", but put it this way: how would you feel if somebody posted pics of their recreation of (URL) with a lewd caption on it? You might think it's (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
(...) From the TOS: "You agree to not use the Service to: (a) upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
Which secion of the TOS do those images specifically violate? Perhaps I'm missing it, but I didn't see any that those were *clearly* in violation of. Jeff (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
I'm not going to take issue with the rest of this, but stolen? I think Stefan's edits, if anything, highlight the expressive quality of the poses. I wouldn't have posted them, myself, but I don't think they're some kind of crime. Soren (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
(...) Fine fine, do you really need me or anyone to tell you what you did was not cool? No respect for the builder's copy written photos. No respect for the Terms of Service for Brickshelf, Maj.com, or Lugnet. No meaningful comment on the model (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
(...) There is no need to apologize for having fun. That is why we are all here. But it is important that necessary we all have fun playing by the rules. That is what "leg godt" is all about. Some folks are a little more sensitive to "colorful" (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
(...) If you thought it was funny, why reply with criticism? (...) Who says I don't? Soren, for example, is one of my favorite builders, and a person I look up to and admire and turn to for tutelage (is that even a word?), and in fact those are his (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
(...) In fact, it is a direct violation of the TOS. I would suggest that the post be cancelled. Even the images are TOS violations of Maj.com. Conduct such as this is highly unbecoming and very disappointing, Stefan. JOHN (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
|
(...) -snip- That's pretty funny. However, please respect the work of other builders. I am sure this model took hours of hard work for Hiron to create. Did you get the builder's permission to re-post their work? Also, please do not post profanity on (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.admin.terms) !
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) -snip- (...) -snip- May I ask if these rules are still being honored? Or are the members of this forum prey to dogs and trolls? I have several complaints. Paid Member #1051 (19 years ago, 21-Sep-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question about a call for a contest
|
|
(...) Hi all: I know that some of the names have changed in the interim, but I wondered if I might re-raise this question. Specifically, the question is as follows: If I call for a contest adhering to an official theme (say, Blacktron) but (...) (19 years ago, 5-Jul-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Review Committee chartered for the LUGNET Policies and Procedures document
|
|
(...) Indeed. Classic-Castle played an excellent one this year. Re-did the whole site in a Classic Space motif. Great fun. But I'm not sure any of these sites had posted an April Fools joke by trying to hide it in policy changes/stuff. I know (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Review Committee chartered for the LUGNET Policies and Procedures document
|
|
(...) -snip- (...) Well, I do now feel a bit of a goose for thinking it was. I thought there were many clues in the post, but it turned out I was entirely wrong. (...) No, there hasn’t been such a case to my knowledge. However, I point out that in (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Review Committee chartered for the LUGNET Policies and Procedures document
|
|
(...) Jan-Albert van Ree - NL (...) A Policies and Procedures document has been drafted by the LUGNET (note the capitalization) Admin Team, as we said we would in the post I referenced. It has been given to the Review Committee that we chartered. (...) (19 years ago, 4-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Review Committee chartered for the LUGNET Policies and Procedures document
|
|
(...) ... (...) That's not an answerable question. I don't know why Lar included names of countries, but let's not make it into an issue. As for the truth vs. spoof, even I don't know. (19 years ago, 4-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Review Committee chartered for the LUGNET Policies and Procedures document
|
|
(...) -snip- (...) I've been waiting for a couple of days for someone to jump out from behind a tree and yell "Gotcha!"... ...but that hasn't happened, so I guess it isn't an April Fools joke after all. Which leaves me wondering, do the six named (...) (19 years ago, 4-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Review Committee chartered for the LUGNET Policies and Procedures document
|
|
As mentioned (URL) here>, the LUGNET administration team has been working on a Policies and Procedures document (sometimes called the P&P for short) that will help clarify to everyone what the various roles and responsibilities related to LUGNET (...) (19 years ago, 1-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question about a call for a contest
|
|
(...) Excellent! Thanks for the response and for giving my question a thorough going-over. I appreciate whatever answer you Admin folks come back with, sometime between April and June. Dave! (20 years ago, 30-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Question about a call for a contest
|
|
(...) Good questions, Dave! I've raised this with the Admin team... We'll mull this over and get back to you with an answer with our usual alacrity(1)... this contest doesn't start for a month or two I hope?(1) ++Lar XFUT to just .terms 1 - that's (...) (20 years ago, 29-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)
|
| |
| | Question about a call for a contest
|
|
Not sure in which .admin forum this belongs; please FUT as appropriate. I'd like to call for a simple contest involving clone bricks and I wondered if it would be appropriate to make announce it in .build.contests, in .build.mecha, in .announce, in (...) (20 years ago, 29-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Thanks for thinking of me. :) It's an oversight. Mostly these days I'm busy with the new baby and with work, but I'm also keeping the lugnet servers up to date and helping with the administrative issues when I get a chance. As things calm (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Clarification: Matt Miller is on this list, but doesn't appear on the admin.general sidebar, is there a reason for that, or is it just an oversight? ROSCO (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: "Some pigs are more equal than other pigs"
|
|
(...) And, whereas I agree with you that no one is immune to theToS of LUGNET, please show where Larry violated that in the specific wording of his post. Again, just becaouse you don't like what was said, doesn't mean what was said violates the ToS. (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: "Some pigs are more equal than other pigs"
|
|
(...) Sorry but being an administrator means you should be a step above the crowd in terms of you behavior. Just be cause you are taking the moment off doesn’t mean the standards should be lowered. To (Loosely) quote the Policy update “They are not (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: "Some pigs are more equal than other pigs"
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Ken Nagel wrote: <snip> (...) Whereas I think I can see both sides of this issue, 1- Larry wasn't posting as an admon, he was posting as a user of LUGNET, justlike the rest of us, and 2- by the very fact that he mentioned o.t.fun (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jan-05, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org.niltc, lugnet.org.us.clb, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | "Some pigs are more equal than other pigs"
|
|
On Tuesday the 18th I extended a simple invitation for people to Visit NILTC’s next show: (URL) was responded to by Larry Pieniazek, The curator for lugnet.trains thus: (URL) copy came from the library who is very excited about this show. I would (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jan-05, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org.niltc, lugnet.org.us.clb, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms) !
|
| |
| | Re: who does chris think he is?
|
|
(...) This sort of highlights something that I wonder about. Are smaller, out-of-the way groups more suitable for otherwise questionable behavior? With things like off-topic.debate, it's skipped by default, so there's less chance that (say) a kid (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Frank Filz wrote: <snip> (...) No! There's no one here like that!! We're all one big happy family! ;) Dave K (20 years ago, 11-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
"Christopher Masi" <cjmasi@*nogarbagepl...e*rcn.com> wrote in message news:IA4uH8.I2t@lugnet.com... (...) A few points: First, by that logic, the announcement groups should be open to discussion. Also, people should feel free to conduct all the (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Yes, I understand that, and I am probably alone in my opinion, but I think that if an initial post is important enough to be placed in a given group, then the thread should live in that group. I am not a fan of having to chase discussions (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Sorry that you don't follow lugnet.admin.terms. It's generally considered bad ettiquette to post to someplace and ask for an e-mail response because you don't read that forum... Perhaps someone else will forward this to you if you don't stop (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
Kelly J. McKiernan wrote: [snip] (...) Is the following reason, really a good reason for discontinuing sn individual's access? I would have thought that the best way to stop "a should be dead thread" is by not responding to it. Why not let people (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) snipped the state I am in (...) And to you. (...) Np, just looking for clarity. (...) Yes, I fully understand that wishful thinking, but considering I'm here posting while fully loaded on New Years, and to quote Mick "You can't always get what (...) (20 years ago, 1-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) [snip] So I guess that means you're hoping the "increased presence" is just making the policy more obvious to newbies and forgetfuls? ROSCO (20 years ago, 1-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Happy New Year, Janey... Sorry if my answer was a bit cryptic there! What I am trying to say is that if the new policy means that people act more in accordance with the ToS than they have in the recent past, it may well be that no time outs (...) (20 years ago, 1-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) This actually makes no sense to me then (and yes, please bare with me, since I have 40 ounces of Bailey in me, being the New Year et al, plus the added affect of various "smokebles"..... )..... I have only one question then........ Why bother (...) (20 years ago, 1-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) "more of presence" ?? Did you mean higher probability or something similar? If so... Not necessarily. (20 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) Does this post and the new process and authorising of said reminder, not imply that their will be more of presence of it being used? Respectfully requested Janey "Red Brick" (20 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Nick Kappatos wrote: Snipped some smack... Good smack always trumps a poorly thought out insult. My disclaimer: Theoretically all post are hypothetical. (pinched that from a forum that puts our idea of insults to shame) (...) (...) (20 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
(...) 1) You have some nerve to speak your piece on back-room pornograpers. I know back-room pornographers, sir; you are no back-room pornographer. Too long has the plight of the BRP gone ignored. BRP's work in our schools, our churches, our (...) (20 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
Repost with updated formatting to avoid FTX display bug, ironically enough... (...) Hello Marc, The perceived absence of clear guidelines, and lack of consequences for poor behavior, have already had a chilling effect on LUGNET discussion. That's (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
|
What follows below is MY OPINION and should not be confused with Official LUGNET Policy. (...) I'd say (unofficially) that anything and everything you say and do on Lugnet goes on your permanent record. Dealings between you and the Administration (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
