| |
"Tom McDonald" <radiotitan@yanospamhoo.com> writes:
> Adam Howard writes:
> > We're talking about ostracizing someone.
> We are not talking about ostracizing anyone, only possible prohibition from
> the cad.* group of newsgroups.
Well, yes and no, right?
* Yes in the sense that "ostracism" means (1) "a method of temporary
banishment by popular vote without trial or special accusation practiced
in ancient Greece" and (2) "exclusion by general consent from common
privileges or social acceptance" --<http://www.m-w.com/>
* No in the sense that we're not talking about prohibition per se from the
cad.* group of newsgroups, but only about possibly removing _posting_
privileges to those groups. That is, in computerspeak, we're talking
about read-only access: disallowing writes but still allowing reads.
Throwing the write-protect switch, as it were.
TimC and AdamH are putting together a CFV motion. There may be several
semi-overlapping and/or independent options to consider:
1) remove JW's posting privileges to lugnet.cad.dev
2) remove JW's posting privileges to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
3) remove JW's posting privileges to lugnet.cad.dev.dat.parts.*
4) remove JW's posting privileges to lugnet.cad.dev.dat.*
5) remove JW's posting privileges to lugnet.cad.*
5) remove JW's posting privileges to lugnet.*
6) fill-in-the-blank
As I understand it, some mix of the above would be the outcome if a
delivered ultimatum was not met within some proscribed time period.
If the community held a vote, and reached a consensus on what to do (via at
least a 2/3 majority), I would honor the community's decision to remove JW's
posting privileges (to whatever groups were decided upon), if it came down
to that. The vote itself (at the discretion of the community) could of
course be further restricted to, say, a 3/4 or 4/5 majority (or higher),
thus making expulsion a bit more difficult.
A 1/2 majority leaves too much room for dissent for any measure of comfort.
A 2/3 majority leaves much less room for dissent because it means that for
every one person voting Nay, there are two people voting Aye. A 4/5
majority leaves even less room for dissent because it means that for every
one person voting Nay, there are *four* people voting Aye.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| (...) BTW, if the group does decide to hold a vote on this, I'll be sitting on the sideline -- I won't be casting a vote on this. For the record, however -- and this is only my opinion having followed this very closely since its inception -- I do (...) (25 years ago, 15-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| (...) A common priviledge here on lugnet is being able to post to any group, which would be revoked if the vote is against him. Exclusion from social acceptance could be achieved by no one answering his posts even with an "I don't know/don't (...) (25 years ago, 15-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| (...) Absolutely. It goes on frequently in the world. (...) Ideally, it should be for the good of both. Hurting another's feelings isn't the issue (though it happens), and it never should be when there are things to be gained by both sides in a (...) (25 years ago, 15-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
|
146 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
