|
Grex > Coop12 > #83: Grex terms of use should prohibit spam and crapfloods | |
|
| Author |
Message |
russ
|
|
Grex terms of use should prohibit spam and crapfloods
| 
Feb 7 06:06 UTC 2002 |
Proposal:
Grex's terms of use should prohibit spamming and crapfloods, and set
fees for cleanup.
Purpose: To discourage behavior such as polytarp's, and all other
spamming. When someone like polytarp or angel21 comes in here, then
Grex could submit the bill to a collection agency. If we ever get
any money, great! If not, we've still done something to dog the vandals.
|
| 31 responses total. |
steve
|
|
response 1 of 31:
|
Feb 7 07:14 UTC 2002 |
I agree it would be wonderful to be able to clean dreck like polytarp's
cruft out of existence, but it isn't going to work. Not with Grex being
an open system. To do what you propose, you'd destroy what we are.
The more attention paid to twonks like him the better it gets for him.
Very much like throwing gas on a fire.
I would like to strangle people like that at times, Russ. I'd cheerfully
sick my six cats on them--after dunking him in tuna oil. Unfortunately, we
can't. ;-)
|
remmers
|
|
response 2 of 31:
|
Feb 7 11:12 UTC 2002 |
I agree with STeve. To implement this policy, we'd have to verify
every user, and get their name and address. No more open newuser.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 3 of 31:
|
Feb 7 13:50 UTC 2002 |
Russ probably approves of that idea.
A technical fix might be better. Is there any way to augment the "fix"
command so you can fix all responses by a given user?
|
aruba
|
|
response 4 of 31:
|
Feb 7 14:26 UTC 2002 |
I agre with STeve and remmers. Joe's idea sound like a good one, if someone
can implement it.
|
krj
|
|
response 5 of 31:
|
Feb 7 15:51 UTC 2002 |
april21 is apparently going to be a regular visitor, there was a new
ad from her in the music conference, item #74.
|
keesan
|
|
response 6 of 31:
|
Feb 7 18:15 UTC 2002 |
And in several other conferences. Would it help to delete the account?
|
glenda
|
|
response 7 of 31:
|
Feb 7 18:50 UTC 2002 |
No it would not help to delete the account, s/he would just create a new one.
|
slynne
|
|
response 8 of 31:
|
Feb 7 21:42 UTC 2002 |
You know, that twill stuff bugged me too but I got over it like 10
minutes after I was done looking at the stuff. russ is probably going to
stress himself into an early grave if he doesnt learn to let stuff go
|
other
|
|
response 9 of 31:
|
Feb 8 00:20 UTC 2002 |
It's not in his constitution to let stuff go.
|
other
|
|
response 10 of 31:
|
Feb 8 00:22 UTC 2002 |
By the way, and for the record, I agree that the only realistic solutions
to this problem are either the existing or new technical ones, rather
than policy ones. <forget>, <pass> or some updated fix.
|
russ
|
|
response 11 of 31:
|
Feb 8 04:41 UTC 2002 |
Re #3: <jp2> Quit being a fuckwit asswipe. </jp2>
Re #2: Not so. The people doing this have no interest - and usually
no method - of hiding their tracks. Spammers have to leave addresses
of some kind. The only people who could hide are twits on dial-up.
Re #1: Prevention would be nice, but it would be just as nice if a
few twonks wound up buying Grex a better Internet connection and some
new hardware. Why should their stupidity cost them nothing?
Unfortunately, we can't take advantage of the pockets of idiots if
we don't have the appropriate policies in place. Technical measures
are nice (I've got some very effective ones myself) but they only
benefit people who use Grex the way I do. Being able to hand out
"speeding tickets" benefits the system as a whole.
Re #6: And nobody's deleted them yet? That's one place where a
fair-witness can save participants the bother of filtering.
|
gull
|
|
response 12 of 31:
|
Feb 8 14:47 UTC 2002 |
I see no point in getting my shorts in a twist about this unless it
becomes a recurring problem.
|
remmers
|
|
response 13 of 31:
|
Feb 8 15:00 UTC 2002 |
Same here. In over ten years of Agora, I can recall only one other
instance of spamming similar to the "twill" incident, and that was
about nine years ago.
|
steve
|
|
response 14 of 31:
|
Feb 9 06:58 UTC 2002 |
Russ, you know--I agree with you on the principle of twonk control.
Say a large Twonk magnet, and just scoop them up.
But we can't do that. And, worse, we can't bill them for our time
to clean up after them because we'd have to go to court over it.
Sadly, there is an inexhustable supply of twonks around. Dealing
with twonks puts them into an excited state and they start spewing
more ejecta as the excitement levels build. Hmm--kind of like neon
atoms, aren't they?
So, while I agree that they're a bother, direct fighting with them
isn't going to work.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 15 of 31:
|
Feb 10 04:18 UTC 2002 |
Re #11: So you don't support verifying users?
|
russ
|
|
response 16 of 31:
|
Feb 11 02:58 UTC 2002 |
Re #13: I think we're going to see more things like angel21, though.
|
russ
|
|
response 17 of 31:
|
Feb 12 01:50 UTC 2002 |
Re #15: Not for Grex's purposes, no.
Re #14: On the other hand, Steve, it might be worthwhile being able
to recover damages from an identifiable twonk. I'm just saying that
Grex should have the policy foundations in place to seek recompense
should that occur. It might help; it sure can't hurt. (Do we have
to *sue* to recover monies due under the terms of use, or just bill?)
FYI, I counted 88 non-forgotten newresponse items on the session
with the "twill" nonsense (which I skipped using a modified twit
filter). But suppose that someone was reading with Backtalk, and
did not have filtering available. Further suppose that it took
10 seconds to click the "next" link and wait for each new page to
load. That's 880 seconds, or almost 15 minutes of wasted time.
That's *per user*. Multiply by probably some hundreds of users and
by some reasonable hourly rate for their time ($10.00 is sensible, but
for many $40.00 is not unreasonable) and we can get a figure of
several hundred to ~1000 dollars damages aggregated over the user base.
Let's put that pain where it belongs.
|
jp2
|
|
response 18 of 31:
|
Feb 12 01:53 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|