| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
| |
Hi Chris, nice to meet you. I’d’ve liked to converse under better
circumstances, but needs must dictate. At any rate, you raise some very good
points, and I appreciate your honesty. I also understand your need for some
of the language, although that’s part of what we’re trying to improve... So
I’ll be honest back.
(I wrote this about three times, and it’s still too long, but there’s a lot
to cover.)
Profanity is just a symptom of some of what currently ails LUGNET. We’re
finding clashes in culture, in interests, in lifestyles, and so on. Other
symptoms include a lessening of respect for people with different opinions or
viewpoints, and openly hostile exchanges between different “factions”.
What’s broken? Can it be fixed? Should it be fixed? Who CAN fix it? Is LUGNET
doomed?
The honest answer to all of those questions: “I don’t know.”
| |
if you feel these abuses are happening, AND DON’T LIKE THEM, then don’t
pussyfoot around!!! just use your almighty power and cancel the post. OR set
up
scripts to auto edit out the foul language. THEN and only then will you
get the
lugnet you want.
|
I’m not going to speak for Todd and Suzanne about the original intent for
LUGNET. Only my understanding of how people should be treated here. LUGNET is
unusual in that the non-anonymous members are granted an enormous amount of
respect by the administration here - the core philosophy, from my
understanding, is that people here are intelligent and can muster enough
common sense to be able to be a self-correcting community. Posts are never
cancelled without a specific request from the person who made the post.
Threads are never closed. Discussion is never inhibited. There is no
censorship here. I can’t point to any other community that I know of and say
that’s true. This place is unique.
| |
how do you keep freedom of speech, yet still make this place safe for “all”
|
Does “freedom of speech”, as guaranteed in the US Bill of Rights, apply to a
privately-owned web site like LUGNET? No. Lack of censorship on LUGNET is
a choice that has been made by Todd and Suzanne, and supported by the
Transition Team.
Can that be changed? Yes. Is it going to be? I don’t know. Is it being
discussed by the administration? Yes.
To be absolutely clear:
Amendment I of the Bill of Rights states: “Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a
redress of grievances.” You’ll notice that “or speaking my mind about
whatever I like on a privately-owned web site” is not listed.
That doesn’t mean you will be repressed. It means there are minimal levels of
conduct for everyone here. And no, we can’t define them - but we can tell
when that conduct falls below acceptable limits.
We’re talking about a toy here - why would there be language not fit for a
(relatively sophisticated) kid to read?
| |
CAUSE after the “baddies” get fed up with not being able to
express themselves you’ll have just the folks you want.
|
We want the baddies. We just want them to place nice. Is that a
contradiction? I don’t think so. Everybody is a baddie to somebody else. Why
turn somebody away just because they don’t agree with you? That would be a
bland, boring place. What we do want (and have asked for in the ToS) is that
people respect one another’s right to think differently.
| |
BUT in private communications what Larry, both in e-mail, VOICE, and on
line
(AND ANECDOTALLY(sp?) WITH OTHERS) I cant help but repeatedly feel
that lugnet
is now the admins private playground and “we” are but mere
guest.
|
Far from being an admin’s playground, LUGNET is more like a minefield, a
no-man’s-land of barbed comments, wide trenches between viewpoints, and
epithets whizzing around. It sometimes feels like we’re performing triage on
a patient with a severed artery, the life pouring out as we watch... and none
of us with so much as a band-aid.
| |
BUT what i am NOT seeing is guilelines.
CLEAR non-lawyer-speak PLAIN ENGLISH guidlines.
I’ve given up that this is “todd’s” place. i now know that LUGNET is
YOURS.
(the admins)
so as such, show me the rules.
DON’T bother pointing me to the TOS. that document is harder to read than
the mortgage agreement i signed to buy my house.
|
We can either put together a comprehensive list of what is and is not
acceptable and watch people creatively squirm around the letter of the law;
or we can put up a less specific set of guidelines and interpret them on a
case-by-case basis, trusting everyone to follow the spirit rather than the
letter of the law. We’ve chosen the latter, which fits in with the respect
granted to LUGNET members, the assumption of enough intelligence to make a
good choice. For whatever reasons, people are choosing to exhibit behavior
that clearly runs contrary to the intent of the ToS. And we are attempting to
deal with each individually.
Would you rather have to follow a laundry list of “Thou Shalt Nots” in the
ToS? Do you want to worry about scrolling through 25 pages of bullet-pointed
rules to make sure you didn’t accidentally do something wrong? Or would you
rather do what you feel is the best thing for you to do, and be reassured
that somebody would help correct any transgressions? Rest assured that if
that laundry list is put into place, there will be a lot more than 7
off-limit words. And the creativity of this crowd is such that there would be
a zillion ways to slide around any specific rule.
You can look at admins as the police, judge, and jury; or as guides to help
the members. It hasn’t been very friendly lately. I wish I knew what to do to
change that, I really do. It’s not as simple as flicking a switch.
Oh, and though you didn’t state it specifically, I’d like to address one
thing that has been flung about repeatedly: administrative actions are not
meant to tell people what to think. Don’t like color changing? Fine with us.
Don’t want to hear about color changes anymore? Fine again. Please remember
that we’re not pushing any agenda, other than to keep this community from
tearing itself apart. Disagree all you want to - but be respectful of the
person you’re disagreeing with.
| |
cause i am prepared to walk away from lugnet the second this place becomes
the “forced happy fun place” i see it becoming.
|
If LUGNET becomes a place where members had to toe a party line, and only
be happy-fun-cheery-smileyface all the time - I’ll walk too. But that’s not
what anybody on the admin team is trying to do.
We’re just trying to keep it from sinking deeper into a pit of despair. We
could use your help. Everybody’s help.
How?
Leg godt.
Kelly J. McKiernan
|
Thanks Kelly,
One does not have to be college educated to be able to figure out if one has
violated the ToS. I couldn’t recite a single item from the ToS, because it has
been so long since I read it. But I know the difference between crossing the
line over what is and what is not acceptable. It is simple common sense.
You treat others with respect, and hopefully they will do likewise. Ad hominem
attacks are a sure sign that you’re getting close to violating it. It is also a
sign of weakness, because you are using a fallacy to help prop up your debate or
argument (Logic Class 101). And is it that difficult to refrain from swearing?
There is no reason to provide greater details in the ToS. Everyone has common
sense. We just need to use it more often, that’s all.
As for the Admins, I feel sorry for them, because they are in a “damned if you
do, damned if you don’t” situation. People were always respectful of Todd and
Suzanne, why can’t we give the Admins the benefit of the doubt? I wouldn’t want
their job, no way!
Gary Istok
A Lugnetter since 1998.
Words of Wisdom: “The person who angers me, controls me”.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
42 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
|
|
|
|
