Subject:
|
Re: Defining some written consequences for transgressions of T&C
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Mon, 5 Mar 2001 23:43:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4872 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, James Brown writes:
> 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)
Ahh. Yes. This is for the annoying kind of stuff and the illegal really
bad stuff needs that reservation...thanks.
> 2: Take out the "if I don't answer, I never got the warning" twink loophole
> in your "first offense" guideline.
I meant for that to be covered under "requiring a response of acknowledgment
of receipt." I guess if someone didn't acknowledge within some period of
time (24 hours?) it should automatically advance to the next level. Or
something.
--Todd
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
