Subject:
|
Re: RTL query
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.faq
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:45:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
11919 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.faq, Neb Okla wrote:
>
> "Thomas Main" <thomasmain@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:HnKvCp.nnL@lugnet.com...
> >
> > continuing to this day (it is true that the advent of LUGNET drastically cut the
> > number of quality discussions about Lego there, however).
>
> It may have cut the number of total discussions, but your personal judgement
> of "quality" can hardly be considered a "truth".
I'm not sure that's quite fair. You're arguing a subtlety that's actually
incorrect, unless your definition of "quality" is so vastly different that it
hardly is worth calling it "quality" in public discussion.
Unless one considers that only morons moved to Lugnet (or wherever), I think the
above is true. It cut the number of discussions on RTL, and with it, 'quality'
discussions. If your own interpretation of quality discussions implies that the
same number of "quality discussions" was going on on RTL before and after
Lugnet, then sure. But if that were the case, I'd daresay your definition of
'quality' was probably abnormal. Cuz, let's face it, if you can find *ONE*
quality discussion on Lugnet that *didn't* make it to RTL, due to Lugnet's
existance, then the point is conceded.
> One nice thing about RTL is that it's full functionality is completely free
> to anyone, it is not privately owned, and it has no legally binding "Terms
> of Use".
Which is also a downside, too. There's nothing preventing spam, foul language,
off-topic discussions, etc; and there's no way to filter content categorically.
> http://www.lugnet.com/admin/terms/agreement
>
> "we must reserve the right to allow or to refuse access to this site to
> anyone, for any reason, with or without prior warning or explanation."
>
> So in other words, if you don't break any of the Lugnet rules, you can still
> be kicked out of the community forever, for any reason, without warning or
> explanation... and best of all, you agree.
>
> Personally, I think you should have to do something wrong before you're
> punished - and someone should explain why (in case there was a mistake).
> Clearly though, with statements like the above, Justice is not the goal...
Heh, that's hardly disagreeable-- I mean, examining the possible situations,
there are a number of instances that may not be easily classifiable which still
merit censorship or removal. Furthermore, what if the person responsible is
unreachable? It's not the administration's job to guarantee that the offender is
contacted before acting. That's just silly; since, in that case, one could act
inappropriately, avoid being contacted, and never have to worry about being
banned or censored.
The impilcation in the TOS (which perhaps would be nice to be included) is that
the administrators will *try* to give explanation or prior warning, but that
it's not guaranteed.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: RTL query
|
| "Thomas Main" <thomasmain@myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:HnKvCp.nnL@lugnet.com... (...) cut the (...) It may have cut the number of total discussions, but your personal judgement of "quality" can hardly be considered a "truth". One nice thing (...) (21 years ago, 26-Nov-03, to lugnet.faq)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
