 | | Re: Lugnet: WAKE UP!
|
| (...) I see nothing inconsistent here. Eric should get an indefinite timeout until he requests cancels on the posts that clearly are over the line, acknowledges he erred and that the ToS does apply to him, and apologises for causing part of the (...) (19 years ago, 3-Apr-06, to lugnet.people) !
| | | | | Re: Lugnet: WAKE UP!
|
| --SNIP-- (...) As I mentioned the first response to Eric, he has in fact been (URL) told before>. Tim --SNIP-- (19 years ago, 3-Apr-06, to lugnet.people, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Lugnet: WAKE UP!
|
| (...) John's not an admin. A PERMANENT ban would still be shotgun against puppy without prior warning, IMHO. A temporary ban is what apparently has been imposed though. (wasn't very clear at first, still isn't very clear although it is somewhat (...) (19 years ago, 3-Apr-06, to lugnet.people, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Lugnet: WAKE UP!
|
| (...) Which "certain others"? ROSCO (19 years ago, 3-Apr-06, to lugnet.people, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Warnings( was: WAKE UP!)
|
| (...) Actually, that raises another question. Should admins disregard advice/warnings given by others (non-admins and admins in non-admin role) in making decisions about timeouts/bans? Seems to me they should count for something, though exactly how (...) (19 years ago, 3-Apr-06, to lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Lugnet: WAKE UP!
|
| (...) Nevertheless, if you read the rest of the thread, Eric did make a (URL) commitment of sorts> not to do it again. So he either willfully disregarded that, or simply forgot, when posting this latest auction. Either one doesn't fill me with any (...) (19 years ago, 4-Apr-06, to lugnet.people, FTX)
| |
