| |
Revisions have been made to the vote questions. Problem Summary and Defense
have not changed.
CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET, REV 1.1
This is a Call For Votes (CFV)
After much discussion it has been decided that an open public vote needs to be
made about this situation. The vote is at the end of this message. Please
read the Problem Summary and Defense before voting.
Problem Summary, composed by Tim Courtney:
The Problem:
For many months, Jonathan Wilson has been an active member on the LUGNET
cad-related groups (lugnet.cad.*). Throughout his existence here on
LUGNET, Jonathan has been repeatedly disrespectful, bothersome, and
arrogant to the point where he utterly refuses to follow any serious
suggestions/corrections that group members make. Jonathan's actions have
been the subject and the catalyst in many upsets, some resulting in all out
flame wars directed at him.
Here are some examples of the upsets which have been directly caused by
Jonathan's posting to cad.* groups:
For being rude and disrespectful,
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/?n=2320
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=2520
http://www.lugnet.com/starwars/?n=3213
http://www.lugnet.com/off-topic/geek/?n=377
For making junk parts and adding no value to the group,
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dat/?n=207
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=1225
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=1284
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dat/parts/?n=218
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dat/parts/?n=222
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dat/parts/?n=320
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=428
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=439
For being clueless,
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=435
http://www.lugnet.com/starwars/?n=3283
http://www.lugnet.com/starwars/?n=1117
For having a bad attitude,
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dat/?n=216
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=1494
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dat/parts/?n=321
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=439
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dat/models/sets/?n=82
For being a pest/nuisance/annoyance,
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=1494
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=2382
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=2433
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=2490
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dat/parts/?n=325
http://www.lugnet.com/starwars/?n=778
http://www.lugnet.com/starwars/?n=3190
For posting in annoying and unintelligible lowercase and deleting much-
needed >-quote markers,
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/?n=2257
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/?n=2318
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/?n=2327
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=2374
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=2444
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=2464
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=2474
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dat/parts/?n=262
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dat/parts/?n=275
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dat/parts/?n=318
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dat/parts/?n=333
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=395
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=417
http://www.lugnet.com/starwars/?n=1854
http://www.lugnet.com/starwars/?n=2406
And finally, for wasting people's time and making them unhappy,
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/?n=1585
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/?n=2323
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=1070
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=1110
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=1114
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=1137
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=1174
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=1210
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=1211
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=1225
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=1284
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=2386
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=2439
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=2455
http://www.lugnet.com/starwars/?n=3286
http://www.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=1310
http://www.lugnet.com/off-topic/geek/?n=378
The above reasons clearly indicate a real problem on our hands.
Jonathan Wilson's posts to LUGNET have defied the general assumed rules of
posting in such a group. He [has posted] horribly formatted messages with
atrocious spelling errors, no capitalization of sentences or proper names,
and no signature. All of which are in the underlying unwritten code of a
focused development group. He [has] also [placed] demands on other
contributors, such as asking others to make him LDraw parts, asking reasons
why something isn't released yet, and getting upset that certain scans are not
at kl.net- just because HE [thought] they should be there.
He [refused] to change his methods despite numerous requests and demands from
many group members. Many group members have posted about Jonathan's
methods in the group and asked for a change. Jonathan [has ignored] these
requests [until recently]. Occasionally group members have written harsh-toned
flames directed at Jonathan due to his actions. When flamed, the only thing he
[has done] is complain or whine about it and then [return] to his usual
methods. He [has made] no effort whatsoever to correct problems pointed out to
him [until recently]. Jonathan also [has] not [responded] to personal emails
about his posting habits.
Because of these [past] actions, many group members have become incredibly
annoyed at him and it has hindered the progress of the group. I know one person
who has mailed me saying quote: '...and he's one of the main reasons I
stopped keeping up with the day-to-day postings on the .cad.* groups...'
and 'I'll say it again - JW is the main reason I'm not keeping up with the
..cad groups right now - JW and all the ill-feelings associated with others
trying to deal with him.'
The LUGNET Terms of Use <http://www.lugnet.com/admin/terms/> states:
LUGNET includes discussion groups which allow feedback and
interaction between users. LUGNET and its owners and/or operators
do not control or censor messages, information, or files delivered
to discussion groups. It is a condition of your use of the
discussion groups that you do not:
1. Restrict or inhibit any other user from using the discussion
groups.
and:
Although we hope that everyone can play well together, we must
reserve the right to allow or to refuse access to this site to
anyone, for any reason, with or without prior warning or explanation.
Though Jonathan [has] not directly [restricted] or [inhibited] the progress on
the discussion groups, he [has made] posting and discussion on cad.* incredibly
difficult by spawning ill feelings and flame wars.
Because Jonathan has behaved in this manner and refused to take the
suggestive corrections of many group members seriously, it is time for
further action.
End of Problem Summary.
Defense, composed by Adam Howard
A few word from Jonathan:
The following is from Jonathan Wilson’s post
<http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=2662>
Here is my final word on all of this.
1.I will refrain from doing any parts development work except for 1 part
at a time and i will keep working on that part until it is good enough,
however long that takes. My first part will be the Baseplate 32 x 32
Raised With Ramp, followed by the Door 2 x 6 x 7 Frame.
2.I will refrain from asking for parts, models, help with parts, models
etc.
3.I will use capital letters (as I have started to do already)
4.I will work on getting my large collection of castle set models to the
OMR standard and I will not submit any models that require custom parts
(so that means 6090 is out for the moment because of the missing castle
wall piece, for example).
5.I will stop asking stupid questions on any of the lugnet groups
6.I promise never to say bad things about another person on this group.
(If you do not have anything good to say, don't say anything at all)
For reference, here is the reply I got from tore to "that message" on
.geek.
Jonathan Wilson wrote:
> > have you done whatever needs to be done (submitted them etc.) for the
> > belville swing, swing stand, samsonite gear and tile with ball parts?
> I don't know. If I get the time, I will look into my Outbox.
> > what set #s used the samsonite gears?
> Those I have seen had #1 and #3. There are probably some more.
> See http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=001-1
> > also what is missing from the curved train track?
> > just the teeth?
> > i have this piece for real and may decide to finish it...
> Go ahead. You have my permission.
> /Tore
I am also apologizing to this group, and all the people here for the bad
things I have said in the past.
Also on the matter of that post to onyx that has got people mad the post
should have read:
Are you going to finish those 8880 wheels that I have been waiting for?
The only problem with all of this is that I do not know if my parts are
good enough yet.
I cant find fault with the baseplate 32 x 32 raised with ramp (except
the corners or course) but that does not mean that there aren't any.
Following taken from Adam Howard’s post
<http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=2551>:
He is obviously very enthusiastic about the LDraw
project. He jumped in before getting both feet wet, but he is learning.
That may not be the best way to learn a new hobby or craft, but it's his way
of doing things, and I'm not going to criticize him because he approaches a
problem differently than me. His 'gimme gimme' attitude is the only thing
that ever annoys me, but I have a lot of friends with very annoying habits,
and I chose to ignore them because the good outweigh the bad. Jonathan's
good traits in my opinion are: enthusiasm, an interest in LDraw, an interest
in Lego, his parts are getting better, and he is eager to correct them when
a problem is found- this tells me he really wants to make quality parts and
is learning how to.
And…
Following taken from Adam Howard’s post
<http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=2572>:
Take a look at the following parts:
3899 Town Cup
4528 Town Fryingpan
4529 Town Saucepan
30044 Arched Window
They all have visible flaws. Three were apparently made by James. Are we
going to say that James' parts aren't good enough for his project. I am
going the extremist route here. I believe better quality is demanded now
than when the project started. Mainly because POV-Ray and LDlite can show
flaws easily. I believe most new part authors do look at existing parts to
determine the level of quality they should use, which is why there are a lot
of questions about quality standards. I think that's one reason Jonathan
asks so many questions about them. Personally I feel a part should be
replicated as closely to the original as possible. But when you look at
some older parts you wonder how far is overboard (for me it's not overboard
until it's sunk to the bottom). I guess my whole point is... there is no
set standard for the quality of ldraw parts, the only standard is our voting
process which catches a lot of mistakes and asks the author to correct them.
And fundamentally the quality of the parts does matter, but we already have
a method to check for that.
End Defense.
Please vote only if you have been directly/indirectly affected (positively or
negatively) by Jonathan’s posts (in other words if you don't know who he is or
what this whole discussion is about please don't vote). And please review the
Problem Summary and Defense before voting.
PLEASE REPLY ONLY to Adam Howard abhoward10@hotmail.com .
(Just cut and paste The Vote into a new mailing to Adam at the above email
before answering. Thanks.)
Note: I will not be acting as Judge. I will only be tallying up the votes.
Along with the final result a list of people who voted and their response will
be posted to lugnet.admin.general one week after voting has started. A 2/3-
majority vote is required to pass any of the actions described in this vote.
Disclaimer: This vote is a community sponsored vote and has no relation to
the administrator(s) of LUGNET. This vote is not setting any precedents for
the LUGNET community.
The Vote (please answer YES or NO, or as indicated otherwise; write-ins are
acceptable and will be tallied separately from the other questions)
Extreme measures:
1. Would you personally enjoy the lugnet groups more if Jonathan
Wilson's posting privileges were revoked from (answer each
separately):
1a. lugnet.* (all LUGNET groups, including those listed in b and c)
1b. lugnet.cad.* (includes all groups in this category)
1c. specific LUGNET groups not included in 1b. (Note: this is primarily for
people who answer NO to 1a and wish to list other specific groups besides
those in lugnet.cad.*.)
(please list)
Note: YES for 1a implies YES for 1b and 1c, even if you write NO
for 1b and/or 1c or leave either blank.
2. Should Jonathan be banned from posting to the groups you have answered YES
to in 1 for a period of six months?
2a. Please indicate what should happen when the six month period has ended?
Please indicate your position by writing-in your answer. Answers to this
question will be tallied separately from all other questions. Another vote on
this specific issue may be called after the end of the six month banishment
period.
Note: If you wish to vote YES to 2, you may still vote on question 3. To
prevent an unbalanced vote those who vote YES to 2 and YES to 3 will only have
their vote for 3 count toward 3 if action 2 fails to pass by a 2/3-majority
vote. In other words you have the option of making sure at least one of the
actions pass without compromising your position on question 2. If you have
questions please contact Adam Howard.
Alternative:
3. Should Jonathan be placed on probation for a period of 6 months as an
alternative to revoking his posting privileges?
If you answer YES to question 3, then please vote on the Probation Violation
definition.
Probation Violation is defined as:
(please choose one of the following or write one in for d)
a. 1 new post
b. 5 new posts
c. 10 new posts
d. Write-in
by Jonathan that result(s) in a flame message being sent by someone in the
LUGNET community, during the probationary period, that is in relation to any
of the points discussed in the Problem Summary.
Note:
A new post by Jonathan would be a new post to any lugnet.* group, including a
reply to an ongoing thread.
A flame message will be defined as any message that contains non-constructive
criticism, anger, or complaints directed at Jonathan based on any of the
problems discussed in the Problem Summary. Flame messages based on problems
not described in the Problem Summary will not count.
Violation of probation would result in immediately revoking posting privileges
for a period of six months. A new vote will be called after the banishment
period to determine further action.
Possible flame posts will be reviewed by a committee and those that are
determined to be a flame message, as defined above, will be submitted to the
LUGNET administration to count towards the Probation Violation. The
committee will be made up of all voters casting a vote for any part of the
CFV. Please indicate if you DO NOT wish to be on this committee when
submitting your ballot.
Those who have already voted do not need to recast your ballots unless you
have changed your vote or if you wish to change your status on the committee.
If you would like to change your recorded vote I will be accepting vote
revision/changes until Sunday August 29 11:59 PM Eastern Standard Time. The
vote results will be posted between 4 and 8 pm on Monday August 30 (barring
any ISP problems).
Thank you for your vote.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
9 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
