Subject:
|
Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:56:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8087 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Todd Thuma wrote:
| |
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 also hope that the mere mention of this new policy and consequences
outlined will lead to self monitoring and will not need implementation.
|
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 experienced to have maximum effect.
| |
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.
|
Agreed. Age is definitely one of the factors that goes into determining a
timeout duration.
| |
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?
|
We haven’t specifically addressed escalation of repeat problem posters, I think
that is probably going to be something we need to work through as we implement
this policy. Eventually, I’d like to see a specific escalation process posted
within the ToS, but it’ll necessarily be just a guideline, since each individual
case will be different.
| |
3) Where will the notification appear? Will the nature of the timeout be
public or private?
|
The current process is not yet writ in stone, but overall it will be a mostly
private process. The intention of a timeout is to give a person a chance to
reflect on their transgression, not necessarily to publicly punish them.
Not that public humiliation is bad in some instances, and at some point that
will probably be necessary. But to start, we’d like to try to handle issues
without public spanking.
| |
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?”
|
We’ve lightly touched on this. My preference (again, it’s not hard-n-fast as a
rule) would be for an admin to put on his/her admin hat and post a public
warning in the thread in question. Fair warning. If that fails to quell the
infraction(s), posting privileges will be revoked after at least two admins
agree it’s necessary. An email notifying the person will be sent as a courtesy,
which they will need to respond to.
| |
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.
|
That may be part of the escalation process, but at this point we’d like to see
how the timeout process works in helping maintain civility. More drastic
measures may be required at a later date, although I don’t think anybody truly
wants to have to implement them.
Thank you for the questions, Todd. This helps us define and explain changes that
the LUGNET Transition Team feels are necessary for the continued well-being of
this community. And as always, constructive suggestions like these are welcome.
Kelly J. McKiernan
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
| (...) 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 (...) (19 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
