Subject:
|
Re: Murfle?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Mar 2006 21:38:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4836 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, C. L. GunningCook wrote:
> BUT, what I am not cool with, and what has upset me is the covert way it all
> went down. • ...snip...
> I fear not what has happened, (heck, my fear wouldn't change anything anyway)
> but I do fear what it could become. I do fear the unknown.
...snip...
> Who did it, when did it happen, and more importantly where are their limits???
I might be speaking out of turn, but it's my understanding that for testing
purposes, some of the posts that were very clearly out of bounds of the ToS were
murfled during the development of this function. I don't think anyone has used
that function since very shortly after it was developed. But again, I'm with you
with regards to knowing any of the inner workings of LUGNET since my resignation
as an administrator and transition group member.
> Before we knew it, the committee blew up, and I was happy to see the unexplained
> murfle die. I am bummed to see him reincarnated, because we really have no idea
> what sort of beast he is.
Actually, I think that, as a function, it's ingenous and appropriate for solving
the types of problems we'd been facing back then. But I also fully agree with
you that to use it would require clearly-understood boundaries and
circumstances.
Unless you find a post murfled more recently than about a year ago, I think it's
just legacy from testing.
To Ross: Correct, newsgroups and searches do not suppress murfled posts. They
weren't meant to, AFAIK.
- Kelly
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
