To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.termsOpen lugnet.admin.terms in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / Terms of Use / 475
474  |  476
Subject: 
Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.terms
Date: 
Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:56:15 GMT
Viewed: 
8085 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR