Subject:
|
Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Sat, 1 Jan 2005 07:12:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8337 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, C. L. GunningCook wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.terms, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.terms, C. L. GunningCook wrote:
| |
Does this post and the new process and authorising of said reminder, not
imply that their will be more of presence of it being used?
|
“more of presence” ?? Did you mean higher probability or something similar?
If so... Not necessarily.
|
This actually makes no sense to me then (and yes, please bare with me, since
I have 40 ounces of Bailey in me, being the New Year et al, plus the added
affect of various “smokebles”..... )..... I have only one question
then........ Why bother making a new post, getting a committee together, and
all the freaking (can I say that?) hoopla, if its not going to have at least
some minor, if not major impact on the posting procedure as we know it?
Regardless, if I am for or against it, and in this state I’m not entirely
sure, but surely there must be a point I am missing. Clarity is paramount,
and I personally would like to know, why make this step if there is no
concrete plan to actually make more “of a presence” or a higher probability
if you so want to choose the wording, in “cracking down” with the ToS, or
ToU, or whatever abbreviation is appropriate?
Hmmmmm does that actually count as two (maybe technically three) questions?
(Like it matters)
|
Happy New Year, Janey...
Sorry if my answer was a bit cryptic there!
What I am trying to say is that if the new policy means that people act more in
accordance with the ToS than they have in the recent past, it may well be that
no time outs are actually given out (that is, the power won’t need to be used),
or at least not more than the average frequency in the past.
I personally would love that outcome. It’s sort of what I am hoping for, as I am
assuming that most everyone here is mature, and the mere reminder that we have a
policy that needs to be adhered to (remember, the nature of what we don’t want
to see hasn’t really changed, peopls just “forgot”), and the awareness that
there are now more people available to give out time outs, will be sufficient.
But if it’s not, we now *can* act without necessarily needing Todd to be
actually doing the enforcing. And if we need to, we *will* act, make no
mistake. But I’d rather we didn’t *need* to act.
Does that help clear it up?
PS, in what HAS to be an ironic twist, you spelt “smokeables” wrong :-)
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
| (...) snipped the state I am in (...) And to you. (...) Np, just looking for clarity. (...) Yes, I fully understand that wishful thinking, but considering I'm here posting while fully loaded on New Years, and to quote Mick "You can't always get what (...) (19 years ago, 1-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
| (...) This actually makes no sense to me then (and yes, please bare with me, since I have 40 ounces of Bailey in me, being the New Year et al, plus the added affect of various "smokebles"..... )..... I have only one question then........ Why bother (...) (19 years ago, 1-Jan-05, 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
|
|
|
|
