| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Todd Lehman writes:
> "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/>
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 care/don't talk to me there, exile boy".
> * 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.
Ya, I needed to be more clear: prohibition from posting is what I meant, read-
only access isn't in question.
> 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.
Okay. I had received no official indication that point #5 was being discussed.
I hope #6 contains things and ideas to which I can agree. If I don't agree, it
more than likely won't cause me to leave any facet of lugnet but I just hope I
end up agreeing. (I'd like this to be one big happy place just like Legoland
you know :-)
IMO (FWIW)..
I am hoping there is going to be a probation period of some kind for lugnet.*.
While his method of doing business in .cad.* certainly warrants ostracising
from that hierarchy, I'm not just sure _ATM_ that it does so for the rest of
lugnet. But he who would be faithful in big things must prove himself faithful
in little things.
I think a term of ostracising should at least be considered (as the definition
above describes) for a chance to prove himself again in the future. He might
wise up given some time. To analogize, unless it's the death penalty, prison
is supposed to be the mechanism by which lawbreakers come to find wisdom.
Though if this is not met then banishment could be in order.
In anyone's opinion, am I being too lenient and/or soft?
> 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.
I know you'd honor that. And I respect you for that as benevolent dictator of
Lugnetland. IMO 2/3 isn't quite enough and could still likely cause dissention
or splintering of a group, while 3/4 is definitely substantial, and achieving
4/5 might require some lobbying though not unjustifiably so. To be nitpicky,
how about 5/7? Such a percentage, 71.428571% (decimal repeats), is technically
achievable with 4 four people in a group but still leaves a bit more room
where larger groups are concerned.
Has the golden ratio been established yet? This would more than likely set a
precedent for how future ostracising is determined.
But I've spoken just about all I want to say about the subject. While this has
dragged on long enough, I'm kinda glad that is has so that this was not done
hastily. I'm calling for a vote as soon as Todd deems practicable.
-Tom McD.
when replying, What's your favorite spamcake? Red. No, blue! *boing* AAAAAAHHH!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| (...) Whoops! There are two #5's up there, eh? :o) By the second #5, I really meant the lugnet.starwars group in particular, although other people may have discovered other areas of related concern, disgust, or disappointment. For instance, there's (...) (25 years ago, 15-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
