Subject:
|
Re: Defining some written consequences for transgressions of T&C
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Mon, 5 Mar 2001 23:35:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4805 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Todd Lehman writes:
> One thing that the Discussion Group Terms & Conditions here lacks is any
> predefined list of actions to be taken if someone commits a transgression of
> the T&C. Here is a proposal...
>
>
> This is not active site policy but instead a proposal for a future update
> to the T&C... Please comment:
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
> First offense: Warning by private email, requiring a response of
> acknowlegment of receipt. Possibly also a warning publicly if the
> transgression is particularly flagrant and has upset others.
>
> Second offense: Suspension of news-posting privileges to the group or
> groups in question for not less than one (1) day.
>
> Third offense: Suspension of news-posting privileges to the group or groups
> in question for not less ten (10) days.
>
> Fourth offense: Suspension of news-posting privileges to the group or
> groups in question for not less than one hundred (100) days.
>
> Fifth offense: Suspension of news-posting privileges to the group or groups
> in question for not less than one thousand (1000) days.
>
> and so forth. (And I doubt there would really be any fourth, much less
> fifth or sixth, offenses. :-)
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>
> The fuzzy parts are of course what is and what is not a transgression, and
> what group or groups to bar from if a transgression occurs -- but those are
> perennial issues we already face. This just addresses what to do.
>
> Naturally, there would be separate counters for separate general categories
> of transgressions (maybe these would be the numbered points in the T&C?).
> For example, if someone posted a flagrant auction flog in the .aquazone
> group for the third time, they wouldn't get banned from that group for 100
> days if they were breaking some other rule for the first time.
>
> It's so simple. I like it. Do you like it?
Yes, it's nice & clean. There's only thing I would recommend doing/adding:
1: stressing (somewhere) that these are 'typical' responses & general
procedure, but that LUGNET reserves the right to bypass these guidelines in
extreme cases. (If, for example, you are able to identify the culprit of a
theoritical DoS attack, or some similarly extreme example)
2: Take out the "if I don't answer, I never got the warning" twink loophole
in your "first offense" guideline.
James
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
5 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
