Subject:
|
Re: Lugnet: WAKE UP!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.people
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Apr 2006 07:40:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
10277 times
|
| |
|
|
--SNIP--
| |
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 ruckus... plus some (fairly sizable in his case) definite amount as a
reminder that he should not trifle. I would not support a permanent
irrevocable ban for Eric, at this time, because in the last year, at least, he
has not been previously warned. He should have been, but he wasn’t.
|
As I mentioned the first response to Eric, he has in fact been
told before.
Tim
--SNIP--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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) !
|
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
|
|
|
|
