| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> All of the following things, taken together, would satisfy me (3) that his
> behaviour has been modified. Omission of any one of them would not.
>
> a) a request to cancel the post in question, worded unambiguously AS A REQUEST
> with no caveats. Remember, permission to cancel is not requesting to cancel. If
> you give permission and I cancel your post, I've still censored it. You have to
> actually REQUEST that it be cancelled for it not to be censorship. (4)
>
> b) a statement that yes, the ToS applies to him as well as everyone else and
> that his anger or frustration does not give him a special pass.
>
> c) a statement that he will not, in future, violate the ToS in this way or any
> other way even close to this outrageously, and an acknowledgement that if he
> does, he will be again restricted in his posting ability and that he accepts
> that as a fair and just outcome.
>
> d) a public apology, directed personally at Jon, that recants, point by point,
> each and every one of the things he said in the offending post, without directly
> repeating them and thus repeating profanity.
>
> e) a public apology to every other reader of LUGNET acknowledging the error of
> his ways in this matter along with a heartfelt promise to generally do better
> in future.
Although I think Richard let his anger get the best of him when he made the post
in question, I think some of these demands are a bit unreasonable. If he were
required to do all these things, you might as well just censor his post because
you are effectively telling him to accept censorship or leave.
Particularly point (d), you are asking him to recant his opinions, which would
probably be a first here on LUGNET. Although you may not agree with the
language he used to express his opinion, he is entitled to hold it nonetheless.
I must admit that, while I don't think his language was appropriate here on a
public forum, I can well understand the sentiment.
Points (b) and (c) are both redundant and unnecessary. Todd has already
demonstrated that these issues will be enforced regardless of Richard's ability
to stay within these bounds in the future. Besides, we all make this promise
every time we check the "I have carefully read..." checkbox on the Post form.
Clearly it is up to Todd to decide what Richard must do to earn back his posting
priviledges. But I trust that Todd is a fair person who will not make this
unreasonably hard for him to do.
I have always found Richard's posts to be thought-provoking whether I agree with
his opinions or not. I would hate to see him chased away from this community
and burned at the stake for allowing himself to get a bit too hopping mad.
- Chris.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Seriously...
|
| (...) You don't get a pass because you're an "angry young man"... (...) No, I'm telling him to abide by the ToS, and explicitly acknowledge that it applies to him and acknowledge that he erred and wronged EVERYONE, not just Todd, and make up for it (...) (21 years ago, 23-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Seriously...
|
| (...) I saw it... I saw the whole thread. When I read Jon's post I thought... "hmm.. Jon's stated what many of us know to be true and put it into one neat package... that's not going to be received well by Richard but I expect just about everyone (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
27 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
