| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Dan Boger wrote:
> (I'm trying to guess where the FUT was supposed to be - .admin.general?)
Kelly set .terms on purpose, by the precedent that Suz set when she announced
(http://news.lugnet.com/announce/?n=1629) the "New Policy on Bickering in LUGNET
Newsgroups", not by mistake. I've reset the FUT there to keep things together
(there is already another followup there) although I agree you could argue
.general as well.
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 05:23:10AM +0000, Kelly J. McKiernan wrote:
> > Suspending posting privileges is a serious step, not one to take
> > lightly or capriciously and therefore the policy we will use has been
> > given some thought. By convention and agreement, it will take at least
> > two of the abovementioned folks to agree that a timeout is necessary
> > for a particular case, and to agree on the length and groups that it
> > applies to. Although, mechanically, anyone with the authority can add
> > (or remove) privs at will for any user can do so by themselves, we are
> > going to do so only after consultation within the group.
> >
> > This is a matter that we will enforce ourselves, if members of the
> > group violate our internal guideline we will take action as necessary.
> > When a timeout is deemed warranted by at least two administrators,
> > action will be taken. All admin action is always subject to review by
> > all administrators.
>
> I think this is a good idea (not just the accoutnability, but the whole
> suspension bit). But I'm trying to understand the technical details -
> when someone is suspended, will it be noted someplace? If it's not (at
> least not to the public), will the admins get notified? Or does
> everyone that get suspended have to write to all those people to make
> sure that the process was followed? (Can you guess which way I think
> would be better? :)
Not sure I understand the questions. We have an internal mailing list. That's
where we will note candidates for timeout along with the groups and time
suggested... as well as noting that the timeout was imposed. There is no
mechanism right now to cause a mail to get sent when the timeout is actually
implemented, it will be a manual process. (a bcc or forward of the note sent to
the person given the timeout seems the best way to go as that preserves the note
sent as well as notifying everyone that it happened)
But we're satisifed there are sufficent checks and balances in place. If someone
is not satisfied with the process in their case, they should only have to write
to one of us to start an inquiry, not all of us, unless there's some reason to
doubt our basic integrity. And if you're doubting that, perhaps LUGNET isn't
really the vehicle you want to use for discussion anyway.
> > When a timeout is given, there will be a note sent to the user at
> > their posting address saying that the timeout has been imposed and
> > referencing the specific post or posts that caused the admins to take
> > the action. The user will need to acknowledge receipt of the note and
> > understanding of the consequences, and agree not to circumvent the
> > timeout by posting from a different email identifier, even if that
> > email identifer is already registered and was not administratively
> > restricted. Failure to acknowledge the note back, or trying to
> > circumvent the timeout may be cause, in the sole judgment of the
> > admins, for imposition of additional timeouts.
>
> This sounds like a good idea, but I worry about stale emails in
> profiles. Especially for people who post via the web, there isn't
> anything right now that checks that their email address is still valid.
No, that's true, there isn't. The onus is on the user to keep their mail up to
date, though. It's a ToS requirement, actually.
> If someone switched ISPs, but forgot to update their profile, they'll
> never get the notice. If that happens, will they have any options
> except posting on .admin.general (assuming they're still allowed)?
Only repeated egregious violaters (that is, people who use their ability to post
to admin.general to violate the ToS there too, like Richard Marchetti did) will
not be able to post to admin.general.
If someone has not properly updated their mail profile, that is itself a ToS
violation so I don't have a huge amount of sympathy, but unless they're a
repeated violater, posting to admin.general (which they can be sure will always
be allowed, by our process, except as noted) or elsewhere (if it's a limited
restriction) is an approach. A better approach if they are not sure what is
going on is to drop one of us a note from the email address of theirs that
actually works.
> Ideally, when they try to post elsewhere, they'll get the note that was
> sent to their email isntead of the posting page... But that would
> require some code, which I understand isn't an option right now.
Yes, that would be nice. Right now they get an error message when they hit
submit saying they are not currently allowed... it's a 441, technically, and
looks like the one pasted into this message:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/test/foo/?n=306
It doesn't say what groups they ARE allowed to or what other ones they are
banned from, etc. but it should be enough to get someone who missed the initial
mail to start an inquiry as to what's going on.
> I do think this new "power" is a good thing, and should have always been
> there. I just don't want the technical details of it to get in the way.
These are all process details rather than technical ones, but sure. We think
we've got the details thought out. Thinking through the details was part of the
reason this wasn't announced the day it was turned on (22 December). However if
there are still holes, by all means, point them out. The goal here is to get a
process that works, and is fair to all parties but not impossibly procedural to
implement. Sometimes time is of the essence.
Hope that helps.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
| (...) Sure, np - I wasn't trying to second-guess, just to guess what it was actually set to, since news-by-mail doesn't reflect that, and I wasn't feeling adventerous enough to look up the msg itself on the server. (...) Right, the process seems ok, (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
| (I'm trying to guess where the FUT was supposed to be - .admin.general?) (...) I think this is a good idea (not just the accoutnability, but the whole suspension bit). But I'm trying to understand the technical details - when someone is suspended, (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
48 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
|
|
|
|
