Subject:
|
Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Dec 2004 14:44:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8205 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
| |
LUGNET administration has always had the ability to temporarily or
permanently suspend the posting privileges of a user or member. In the past
this has been only very rarely used. The mechanism for doing so was such that
only Todd (or for a time, Suzanne) could easily do so.
Members of the LUGNET Transition Team, who have been meeting regularly for
the last year to discuss various ways of improving LUGNET, have been granted
access to this mechanism by Todd, along with the authority to use it when
necessary. Additional suggestions and changes are still being discussed by
the group, but recent discussions and community trends have prompted us to
implement this particular change now.
|
SNIP
I would like to thank the LUGNET Transition Team, those listed here as well as
those not listed, for their continued efforts on behalf of the AFOL Community.
I also hope that the mere mention of this new policy and consequences outlined
will lead to self monitoring and will not need implementation.
I would like to suggest that the instances of “timeout” be considerate of three
main points:
1) Age of the individual at the time of posting. Children have different
attitude and behaviors when it comes to online posting than adults. I leave it
to you to determine whether the adult or the child’s behaviors are more
appropriate, but understand that and adult and a child will differ in their
posting and their reaction to “timeout.” The LTT should appreciate this fact and
penalize accordingly.
2) Repeated “timeouts” lead to...? This was not mentioned in your post and
should be outlined so that the penalty for successive “timeouts” is understood.
There might be a few “hot-heads” that return to the thread immediately after
returning from “timeout” only to be penalized again. Have you considered how the
ToS addresses this and will a new policy need to be added?
3) Where will the notification appear? Will the nature of the timeout be public
or private? Will you post in the thread where the reason for penalty occurred or
will there be a new newsgroups to publically post those that are in “timeout?”
My personal preference is for there to be a public posting informing the
community of the reasoning and example of the infraction (without repeating the
foul langauage) either as a reply to the post where the fracion occurred in the
thread or in a newsgroup set aside for announcing timeouts. I think a public
posting is important not to single people out but to educate others about
improper postings and to be up front about the process of the LTT. Since the
transition team represents the community, there actions to discipline group
members should be public so as to dispell any notions of the LTT working against
particular individuals. You might have addressed this in you carefully worded
explanation, but not in the detail I am asking for here.
Sincerely, Appreciatively, Respectfully,
Todd (the other one, Thuma)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
| (...) As do I, but realistically, it will need to happen at some point, as we've all seen increased instances where something like this will be necessary. I don't think the "threat" of a timeout is sufficient, the actuality of it will need to be (...) (20 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
