| |
At 08:34 AM 8/18/99 , Steve Bliss wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 15:29:01 GMT, "John VanZwieten"
> <john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> > How about a 1 post per day limit to the cad.* heirarchy as a probationary
> > condition? This would force Jonathan to more carefully consider what he • posts,
> > and would give everyone a break from the deluge of sometimes rude or • irritating
> > posts.
>
> I like this idea, but I think a self-regulated restriction would be better
> than a system-imposed limit, for several reasons:
>
> 1. Todd doesn't have to develop the solution.
> 2. It's a simple, measurable way for Jonathan to show (in)compliance.
> 3. Corrollary to item (2), it's easy to tell if the terms have been
> violated.
I like this idea as well. But I think we should wait on the results of the
vote first - because he has gone over the edge with his antics (as far as
I'm concerned) and I'd like to see a break where I don't have to worry
about his posts at all. But if the vote doesn't work, or if it goes in
favor of a committee, then this would be a good plan to implement. Like
you said, its clear-cut so we KNOW if he's violating terms.
And another part of the terms should be for him to use a signature. That's
another one of the things I've pushed for a long time that he's FLAT OUT
IGNORED and therefore REFUSED to change (rather arrogantly).
-Tim <><
http://www.zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org
AIM: timcourtne
ICQ: 23951114
Commonwealth Edison: What do you do with OUR power?
Get paid to surf the web! Visit:
http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=DGO655
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
| (...) I'm not sure I buy this. What value, exactly, does a signature bring? It seems decorative, and the value is mostly to the appender being able to make: (...) political statements or statements about their belief systems (...) more information (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
| [Hey! I remembered to trim the rest of the newsgroups header this time!] (...) I've gotta agree with the other follow-uppers on this point: lack of a signature is no reason, or even part of a reason, for disciplinary action. I feel the same about (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
101 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
|
|
|
|
