Subject:
|
Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Dec 2004 17:33:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8104 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly 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.
Whatever the least restrictive time proposed is will be the one used; so if
Kelly thinks that Lar needs a 24 hour time out and Frank thinks it’s more
like 48, then it is the 24 hour period that will carry. Further, if Kelly
thinks that the ban needs to apply to all groups except admin.general but
Frank thinks it only needs to apply to market and off-topic, then it will
only apply to market and off-topic.
|
Just out of curiosity, is there any sort of appeal process? For example, if Lar
doesn’t think that his hypothetical 24-hour Timeout is appropriate, can he
request a review of the decision, or is the decision considered to have been
reviewed before the Timeout is even revealed to the Timeoutee? In any case, and
in my opinion, Lar’s had a hypothetical 24-hour Timeout coming for a long time
now, and I hypothetically applaud this hypothetical disciplinary measure.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
| (...) We have not developed one. Hopefully there won't really be a need but if there is, (that is, if someone gets timed out and then sends a note to the admins contesting the decision) we would either look at it again, ad-hoc, or develop one. We (...) (19 years ago, 29-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
|
|
|
|
