Subject:
|
Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Wed, 29 Dec 2004 01:07:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8492 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Marc Nelson, Jr. wrote:
| |
Admins -
Thanks for posting this outside of .admin so that everyone sees it. The Terms
of Use need to be updated to reflect this new policy as well as some other
changes.
|
Agreed. There are a number of relatively small things that need clarification,
revision, expansion or elaboration. But I think these are all at the margins,
the main thrust is clear.
| |
For example, both your post and my reply are against the TOU:
8. (do not) Post non-plain-text content such as HTML, multi-part MIME
messages, or so-called “binaries” including but not limited to: images,
sounds, multimedia files, computer programs, and blocks of text created using
binary-to-text conversion utilities such as BinHex, uuencode, btoa, and PGP
message encryptions (short PGP signatures, however, are permitted by the
server).
|
I scratched my head about this for a bit, as I wasn’t sure what you were getting
at. But then I thought, perhaps you’re referring to FTX coding? (as an aside, it
might be more helpful if you came right out and said what you meant rather than
not saying what you mean)
I would argue that you might technically be right, except that FTX is almost
plain-text, more so than HTML is. (and certainly way more so than all the other
examples cited).
Still, I’m willing to admit that the ToS could stand a minor clarification to
say that FTX, since it’s designed and developed to be used here, clearly is not
in scope of the prohibitions listed. A reasonable person would probably know
that already, I think.
Is the ToS intended to be something that’s interpreted or is it supposed to be
hard and fast, full of thou shalt nots and subject to a lot of rules lawyering?
I’m not actually sure I know the answer to that. Clarity is usually good. Except
when it’s not or when people use a “letter of the law” mode to break the spirit.
| |
People need to know the rules that they are supposed to be following. Here
are my favorite parts of the new policy:
| |
First, the group of folks that can suggest timeouts is not itself immune
to being subject to getting timeouts.
|
| |
- Repeated abusive language or personal attacks, i.e. bringing more heat than light to a discussion... also known as attacking the person, not the position;
|
Personally, this is great news, especially after being called
“egg-headed”,
“stupid”, “pig-headed”, and
“ignorant” here on LUGNET. I trust the new rules will be enforced
impartially.
|
I read those cites and I am not sure I agree with your assessment. Consider the
following hypothetical quotations
- You are a big poopyhead
- You are stupid
- I quote you when you say “people who act that way are stupid”
- I claim that people who seem to agree with you sometimes say “people who act that way are stupid” or at least seem to think that way
- I think you said something stupid there
- I think I don’t agree with what you said and I think you’re wrong
- Can you clarify what you meant, I’m having trouble agreeing with you?
Now, #1 is not very constructive. It certainly appears denigrating. And unless
used in a clearly bantering context with someone that you already have a
longstanding relationship with, it’s probably actually denigrating. It probably
should be avoided here because it’s hard to tell what’s what which can lead to
misunderstandings.
#2 is harder to construe as bantering. It probably is denigrating. Again, ought
to be avoided.
#3 is either true or false. If true, it may or may not be useful and ought to be
used with care. If false, it clearly ought to be avoided.
#4 is very non person specific. It may be less than useful in discussion but it
probably, taken by itself, is ok.
#5 is a “hate the sin, love the sinner” sort of thing. Said by itself it is not
calling the person stupid, just the statement.
#6 is quite soft. It’s showing disagreement but is still in my view, by itself,
perfectly fine
#7 is very very soft, it is hard to argue that it should ever be disallowed.
Some people would argue it’s too soft.
Given all that, I don’t think I agree with your assertions that you were
directly called any of the things you assert you were called. I might not have
chosen the wording Lenny did but I don’t think he did anything untoward.
Thats my view anyway. Hope it helps.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
| (...) snip (...) I was referring to the fact that FTX and images within posts are prohibited by the (URL) TOU>. A reasonable person who has been posting to LUGNET for years might know that the TOU is badly out of date and no longer reflects reality. (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
| Admins - Thanks for posting this outside of .admin so that everyone sees it. The Terms of Use need to be updated to reflect this new policy as well as some other changes. For example, both your post and my reply are against the TOU: 8. (do not) Post (...) (20 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
