|
Grex > Coop12 > #83: Grex terms of use should prohibit spam and crapfloods | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 13 new of 31 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 19 of 31:
| 
Feb 13 00:16 UTC 2002 |
Re #17: In this context you're going to have to sue, even if you try to
bill. Think about it. Unless the person was dumb enough to give
newuser their real identity, finding out *who* to bill would require
going to court to get the records of their ISP. After that, if you
bill them they'll almost certainly just ignore it. Then you'd have to
go to court to get them to actually pay. Considering that it'd be hard
to prove Grex had actually lost any money as a result of their actions,
winning isn't a certain thing either.
|
jp2
|
|
response 20 of 31:
|
Feb 13 02:32 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 21 of 31:
|
Feb 14 10:51 UTC 2002 |
resp:17 Yes, I use Backtalk. No twit filter, sorry, unless one is
built for us into the interface that we can toggle on/off.
|
remmers
|
|
response 22 of 31:
|
Feb 14 11:36 UTC 2002 |
Backtalk does have a twit filter. Go to the "Edit your personal
settings" page, then click on "Edit list of users to ignore".
|
steve
|
|
response 23 of 31:
|
Feb 17 20:11 UTC 2002 |
Russ, the problem I have with giving someone a bill for cleanup is
that the person who'd cause the need for the cleanup is exaqctly the
type to ignore it. Without enforcement of some kind we'd never see
anything, and I fear we'd spend more time on twonk control policies
than Grex maintanence.
|
russ
|
|
response 24 of 31:
|
Feb 18 22:36 UTC 2002 |
Re #23: But that's the beauty of collection agencies, Steve! We
just let someone else do it, and collection agencies are really
good at making nuisances of themselves. If we can get details
like phone numbers and addresses from the ISP or school, that's
all we need. (Getting the twonk cut off by the ISP or school is
another good threat, to help prevent repetition.)
|
scott
|
|
response 25 of 31:
|
Feb 19 00:33 UTC 2002 |
A collection agency is not going to work for free. If they're not convinced
we have a collectable case, they'll want something up front for the effort.
I would not want to be part of a system that sends collection agencies on
dubious claims, by the way.
|
mdw
|
|
response 26 of 31:
|
Feb 19 13:15 UTC 2002 |
Before we could send a collection agency after someone for vandalism,
we'd have to collect a bunch of evidence on what happened, use that
evidence to positively identify one person, sue them in court, get a
judgement for monetary damages against that person, and give that person
a reasonable opportunity to cough up the damages. Simply looking at the
cost and chances of success of each step should show the result isn't
cost-effective. It's possible the whole effort could back-fire; vandals
might find the result entertaining enough to repeat the stimulus. More
importantly, this would all occupy staff time that can be better spent
on useful projects.
|
other
|
|
response 27 of 31:
|
Feb 19 15:47 UTC 2002 |
Ooh Spend a dollar to get a penny. Good Stuff!
|
keesan
|
|
response 28 of 31:
|
Feb 19 16:42 UTC 2002 |
Collection agencies, for a promise that you will give them half the winnings,
send a legal-looking letter to someone to be ignored.
|
pgreen
|
|
response 29 of 31:
|
Mar 9 07:05 UTC 2002 |
And besides, since when is freeform ASCII art abuse?
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 30 of 31:
|
Jun 8 10:25 UTC 2002 |
resp:22 on pistachio or abalone?
|
polytarp
|
|
response 31 of 31:
|
Aug 21 17:08 UTC 2002 |
I think russ should pay grex for his own stupidity, and the "rumours" which
I'm sure you've heard.
|