To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.termsOpen lugnet.admin.terms in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / Terms of Use / 594
593  |  595
Subject: 
Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.terms
Followup-To: 
lugnet.admin.suggestions
Date: 
Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:07:10 GMT
Viewed: 
4574 times
  
Hi Kelly,

In lugnet.admin.terms, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
   “LUGNET reserves the right to cancel messages which not comply with the terms above.” Can you elaborate on how and when a given message would be cancelled?

Either I’m stumbling over for myself, or somebody is sending an email or there’s a request in lugnet.admin. These are possibilities. Others, like just posting a reply to a message in question and keeping it within lugnet.subgroup.sidestreet.leftmosthouse.basement isn’t a good idea. But I don’t intend to install some kind of central counter to snitch on others.

On the other hand: Maybe such a “counter” (could be a simple form or a link at the bottom of each message) isn’t a bad idea? Probably it could prevent upcoming controversies in the groups. To tell people (and to anchor it within the ToU) not to accuse somebody in the groups for violating the ToU but to use the “official channel”? FUT .admin.suggestions

   What criteria would you use to determine if a post should be deleted?

Common sense.

But of course, often there are gray areas or completely different points of view. Since I will not take somebody’s site in such discussions by expressing my personal opinion, I would just point to the ToU and to the specific passage(s) and that’s it. General, I hope I don’t have to use the “Cancel”-button too often, also I’m not looking around pushy and with eagle eyes, I’m not going hunting. Decent advice and polite requests should achieve their purpose, we’re AFOLs in the end.

   Also, do you plan on using the “murfling” capabilities Todd added?

Probably not or at least very rarely. I wouldn’t know for what. Either something is against the ToU and to such an extend off the mark that it should be canceled, or it is not.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts,
Rene



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
 
(...) Hello Rene, The new ToU does seem more clear and concise, although there is one area that I think could use some clarification. At the bottom of the T&C block is the new (and IMO much-needed) sentence: "LUGNET reserves the right to cancel (...) (18 years ago, 18-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)

23 Messages in This Thread:








Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR