Subject:
|
Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Wed, 29 Dec 2004 03:33:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8850 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.terms, Marc Nelson, Jr. wrote:
| |
| |
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
|
Possibly prohibited. I don’t see it that way, even without clarification
|
What part of the TOU is ambiguous? It says “It is a condition of your use of the
discussion groups that you do not: (X)” - meaning that if you do X then you may
not be allowed to use the discussion groups. Are there any other parts of the
TOU that don’t mean what they say?
| |
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 the specific paragraph like you did the first time is actually more
useful than just linking the entire thing.
|
Didn’t mean anything by the link - I was just concerned that some people might
not know where I was getting that paragraph from. It’s always best to cite your
sources.
| |
| |
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.
|
Nor do I. As I already said. I think the ToS ought to be updated. Was there a
further point you wanted to make? I’d rather hear about the larger
philosophical question I asked about broad guidelines versus detailed
prohibitions instead of debating the fine points of whether FTX is prohibited
or not under the ToS as it stands today.
|
As you said, clarity is usually good, and I think that is true in this case as
well.
| |
| |
Which (if any) of your seven examples are prohibited by the new rules?
|
The same ones as before.
|
And those are...?
| |
This is a new administrative process, not new rules.
I posted the examples in hopes that reasonable people would draw reasonable
conclusions, not to spark rules lawyering.
If you have a specific complaint, make it to a member of the Transition Team,
by email, and we’ll take under advisement and act accordingly.
|
You posted a list of examples that may or may not be grounds for a “timeout” - I
think we should know what specific behaviors we should be avoiding. I wouldn’t
want the absence of clear guidelines to have a chilling effect on LUGNET
discussion.
Marc Nelson Jr.
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
| (...) The part that questions whether FTX is allowed specifically. Images, as they appear in FTX are definitely ALLOWED by that rule, because you are not posting a binary image, as the TOU specifically indicates not to do, you are posting a URL to (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
| In lugnet.admin.terms, Marc Nelson, Jr. wrote: <snip> (...) In situations such as these, I often consult 'the oracle'... Judge Payton: "Judges are bound to interpret the Constitution within the strict parameters of the text itself. The Constitution (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
| Repost with updated formatting to avoid FTX display bug, ironically enough... (...) Hello Marc, The perceived absence of clear guidelines, and lack of consequences for poor behavior, have already had a chilling effect on LUGNET discussion. That's (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (19 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
|
|
|
|
