| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Chris Phillips wrote:
> 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,
You don't get a pass because you're an "angry young man"...
> 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.
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 by removing the post, and give some reasonable
assurance he won't do it again. That's not censorship.
If he won't do these things I think the restriction should stand, because he's
(by not doing them) saying the ToS doesn't apply to him and he can do as he
pleases here.
>
> Particularly point (d), you are asking him to recant his opinions, which would
> probably be a first here on LUGNET.
That point could stand a little rewording, the intent is not that Richard
publicly change his opinion, but rather that Richard point by point apologise
for the precise wording used. It's vile and foul and in need of a point by point
penance. Penance is not supposed to be easy or flip or glib.
> 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.
I don't agree. It is my belief that Richard does not really take the ToS
seriously. If he did, he wouldn't have replied the way he did in the post that
starts this thread. Go reread it carefully. Further, I believe that Todd doesn't
think he takes the ToS seriously either.
Therefore the explicit mechanics of b and c make it crystal clear to him that he
acknowledges that he realises this and give him no excuse if in future he
transgresses again.
> 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.
While igorance is no excuse of the law, I am at this point convinced that
Richard doesn't really *mean* it when he checks that box (which if you're signed
in as a member, you explictly check once in a blue moon)
> 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.
Considering the repeated rabblerousing he has engaged in in the past, the long
leash that Richard has heretofore been granted, his history on other boards and
the nature of this gross transgression, I don't think acknowledging that rules
apply is at all "unreasonably hard". It may be unreasonably hard for HIM to do
given his apparent nature (acknowledging fault not being an apparent strong
suit), but that's his issue, not the readership's.
> I have always found Richard's posts to be thought-provoking whether I agree with
> his opinions or not.
We may have to agree to disagree. Much of the time I can predict in advance what
he's going to say and find it not at all thought provoking. Provoking, perhaps
but not thought provoking. There is a difference.
> 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.
No one except Richard is doing any chasing away. He either abides or he chooses
by his own actions to withdraw.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Seriously...
|
| (...) Maybe you use a different web interface than the rest of us do, but I am always signed in as a member, and my posts are not accepted unless I check the box on every post. Your other points are well taken. It seemed from your earlier post that (...) (21 years ago, 23-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Seriously...
|
| (...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 22-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
|
|
|
|
