Lumma vs. Lumma

From metatuning:

Message 7067 of 7075 | Previous | Next
Msg #
From: "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...>
Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 4:44 am
Subject: Re: The junior senator from Wisconsin

>It is beyond my power to make you presona non grata
>on the AWL. It is beyond my power to ban you from
>the AWL. What I can do is ban specific accounts from
>the AWL, but I have never done so.
>-Carl
===========================
From metatuning:

Message 6378 of 6864 | Previous | Next
Msg #
From: "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...>
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 8:15 pm
Subject: Re: Peter

(..)
>Mark has shown up and given Gene and I (and maybe others) some
>moderator powers. If Sault or anybody else drops one rascist [sic]
>remark he's history.

>(..) I've made it so he can't post without moderator
>approval, turned off his ability to post files...

-Carl
===========================

Which is it, Carl Lumma?

Were you telling the truth when you told us you could
ban Peter Wakefield Sault ("he's outa here")? Or were
you telling the truth when you told us you can't ban
me ("it is beyond my power to ban [mclaren] from the
AWL")?

You know perfectly well, Carl Lumma, that you can delete
any account with moderator's powers, and you also know
that you can delete that person's new account if they
change usernames and show up again. You know just as
well as we do, Carl Lumma, that you can put anyone
on permanent moderated status and make it impossible for
someone to post -- you know it because you said yourself
that you could do it. You know damn well you can delete
all of a person's posts before they ever appear.

In fact, Paul Erlich protested against exactly that
kind of censorship in a post you yourself quoted:

From metatuning:

Message 6616 of 7060 | Previous | Next

From: "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...>
Date: Mon Jan 5, 2004 3:48 pm
Subject: Re: [MMM] Looking for tuning application

> I was sick when the new moderators made their ascent.
(..)
> Somehow, we now have censorship on this list, and those
> doing the censorship are . . . leading by example? NOT!
-- Paul Erlich
===========================
So which is it, Carl Lumma?

Were you lying then, when you told us you could ban
Sault ("he's outa here") and prevent him from ever
posting anything ("I've made it so [Sault] can't post
without moderator approval")? Or are you lying now,
when you tell us you can't ban me and prevent me from
ever posting anything ("it is beyond my power to ban
[mclaren] from the AWL")?

Explain it to us, Carl Lumma.

Were you lying then?

Or are you lying now?

---------
--mclaren

on 4/13/04 5:26 PM, xenharmonic <xed@...> wrote:

> Were you telling the truth when you told us you could
> ban Peter Wakefield Sault ("he's outa here")?

He's outa here was true. He left of his own accord. He was put on
moderated status before leaving. He was not banned.

> Or were
> you telling the truth when you told us you can't ban
> me ("it is beyond my power to ban [mclaren] from the
> AWL")?

Perhaps a technicality. Carl can ban a account, as he said. But a person
can come back reepeatly (forever) on new accounts that he/she creates as
needed. There is no mechanism to prevent that. The list policy can be
changed to that all new accounts are implicitly moderated until released
from that status, which can help, and in fact can accomplish something
equivalent to bannning a person, if they either use their real name or if
their behavior is recognizable. However, both of those things are in fact
optional. I am guessing that you would have no desire either to take an
alias or to behave like someone else, in which case you might effectively be
banned. Not that anyone is going to do that.

-Kurt