| |
In lugnet.people, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.people, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
--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.
|
John’s not an admin. A PERMANENT ban would still be shotgun against puppy
without prior warning, IMHO.
|
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 they should be taken into account is not an easy question to answer.
ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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 (...) (18 years ago, 3-Apr-06, to lugnet.people, FTX)
|
42 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
