Subject:
|
Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:21:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8762 times
|
| |
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.terms, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.terms, Marc Nelson, Jr. wrote:
|
|
snip
| |
| |
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.
|
I was referring to the fact that FTX and images within posts are prohibited by
the 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has been posting to LUGNET for years might know that the TOU is badly out of
date and no longer reflects reality. But what about a newbie? I don’t see the
benefits of an inaccurate or incomplete TOU.
| |
| |
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
|
Which (if any) of your seven examples are prohibited by the new rules?
Marc Nelson Jr.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
| (...) Possibly prohibited. I don't see it that way, even without clarification (...) I saw the cite the last time, thanks. I do appreciate the re-citation just in case I didn't see it (although I responded directly to it), but I think the quote of (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
| (...) 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. (...) I scratched my head about this for a bit, as I wasn't (...) (20 years ago, 29-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
|
|
|
|
