Subject:
|
Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:56:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3315 times
|
| |
|
|
--snip--
| |
| |
| |
I find it amusing, in a sad sort of way, that cries of censorship continue
to crop up on Lugnet, which is one of the most unmoderated and
self-policing communities on the web (at least that I’ve frequented). The
complaints about censorship imply (to me) a deeper problem - that for some,
anyone else imposing their judgment on someone else is not acceptable.
The attitude that there should be no moderators or administrators who can
levy punishment or single out a post that the admins felt violated the
ToS. The attitude that somebody would have (gasp) power over someone
else. The feeling that nobody else should appear better than the rest of
us. This attitude was instilled - apparently by design - at the beginning
of Lugnet and appears integral to at least some long-time members.
|
As I’m sure you remember the internet used to be a great bastion of free
speech and self-policing. In some ways that attitude has lived on in Lugnet
and I’m glad it has.
I’d like to know why you think Lugnet should be changed?
|
I’m not advocating it be changed, at this point. A couple of years ago, I
tried. Now... no. Lugnet will continue to be Lugnet for the forseeable
future.
|
OK
| |
| |
If it was still the
only LEGO forum I could see your argument but if people want to frequent a
censored or administered forum they can choose to do so. There is no need to
change Lugnet to a different model and the push, as far as I’ve seen, has
never been from the owners/chief administrators but always from certain
members, just as the push against has been from certain members.
|
Actually, Todd was fully behind the push that Lenny and I were involved with,
but I can see where that wouldn’t be obvious (which was part of the reason it
didn’t work, I think.)
|
OK. I was pretty much a lurker at that time so I really didn’t know what was
going on behind the scenes.
| |
| |
I suspect too that given the disaster (in some people’s minds) last time a
more moderated version of Lugnet was tried out that there are some who
believe that the status quo is preferable to the unforseen consequences of
attempts to change it. There is a good arguemnt that the time it got
nastiest was when it was made more moderated.
|
Yes... mainly because many members refused to acknowledge that the people
trying to instigate change had the authority to do so.
|
From my observations that wasn’t the only reason nor even the main reason. From
my solo, lurking position (as in unconnected to any of the parties involved)
there appeared to be too much abuse of power.
Which actually gets to the heart of why I’m unkeen on moderation etc. You have
to be very, very careful who you put in charge and with community forums that
can require very, very strong leadership as personal relationships get in the
way of who is the best fit for the job. In my opinion it’s far better to have a
few ordinary members out-of-control than even one moderator.
| |
One of the people I had suspended during that brief time recently attended
BrickFest, and I had the opportunity to discuss things with him. I’m glad to
say there appeared to be no ill will, and I had a good time talking with him
during the event.
|
While I won’t comment on who I think were bad jobfits you were one of the people
I probably considered a good jobfit so I’m not entirely surprised.
| |
| |
| |
Lenny described the history and intent of murfling very well. You can
choose to interpret a murfled post as censorship, but that doesn’t mean it
is censorship. And more to the point, I don’t really see why it matters.
Kelly
|
Nor does it mean it’s not censorship.
|
Granted.
| |
Murfling is there to change the
appearance of certain posts on the web-based viewing system of the lugnet
newsgroups.
|
Agreed.
| |
That is, to my mind, a form of censorship and not, as Lenny
suggests, an alternative to censorship.
|
Again, not seeing why it’s an important distinction. But I hope you’ll
understand that the intent was to try to meet two conflicting requirements.
As far as it’s been used, I think it’s a reasonable solution.
Kelly
|
I think it’s a reasonable solution too but I also think that it is a form of
censorship and that giving it a different name doesn’t change its main function.
Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
| (...) Agree. From my standpoint, people involved at the heart of the debate didn't so much object to the existance of that power, they mostly objected to the perceived misuse of that power. Certainly, the possibility of moderation was objectionable (...) (17 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
| (...) I'm not advocating it be changed, at this point. A couple of years ago, I tried. Now... no. Lugnet will continue to be Lugnet for the forseeable future. (...) Actually, Todd was fully behind the push that Lenny and I were involved with, but I (...) (17 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
61 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
|
|
|
|
