response 23 of 130:

Dec 3 15:48 UTC 2003

Re 18 (jep):

So you're proposing a sort of immunity for Board candidates?  That sounds like
a magnet for abuse...


This all reminds of my childhood, when one of my siblings would combat boredom
by starting arguments, preferably between people who were otherwise good
friends.

response 25 of 130:

Dec 3 16:21 UTC 2003

(I read Scott's esponse as referring to Jamie as "the kid",
not you.)

response 27 of 130:

Dec 3 16:40 UTC 2003

For what it's worth, it was valerie that locked jp2's account, and I
don't think she reads coop very often, so it's unlikely that she'll come
here to defend her actions.  It's also unlikely that she has read any of
jp2's recent coop items.  

I think that staff messing with a board member's campaign is a bad
thing, but it would be an even worse thing if staff were not allowed to
protect the system from someone just because they happened to be running
for board.  Otherwise next year willcome or some other cookie-cutter
twit will send in $18, announce he's running for board, and start
running forkbombs and harassing people and compiling eggdrop and.....

Without revealing the contents of board/staff communications with Jamie,
suffice it to say that 1) this story isn't over, and 2) I'm reasonably
happy with the way it's going.  

response 29 of 130:

Dec 3 17:08 UTC 2003

(Sorry about the ambiguity, jep - I was not referring to you as one who starts
arguments for fun)

And I really can't see why staff should not be able to deal with vandals,
regardless of whether they're board candidates or not.  Flem pretty much
covered "why" in #27.

response 31 of 130:

Dec 3 17:33 UTC 2003

        From:     STeve Andre' 
        Subject:        Re: Account of Board Candidate Terminated
        Date:   3 December 2003 12:03:17 PM EST
        To:       Eric R. Bassey 

Sure!  Feel free to post this message, and my original message
to him, if you think that will help things.  I'm dealing with a time
critical crisis at work so I have to get back to it now.  I'll see 
the discussion in coop tonight, or earlier if I can.  Thanks for 
asking, and thinking of doing that.  Post this message if you'd 
like.   STeve

On Wednesday 03 December 2003 12:03 pm, Eric R. Bassey wrote:
If you don't do it, can I post some portion of this in the item in
Coop, by way of public explanation for the timing?   Not that I want 
to place blame, but I think it helps to remind folks that staff are 
human and volunteer and have lives that do not revolve around Grex.

On 3 Dec 2003, at 11:46 AM, STeve Andre' wrote:
Valerie, I owe you an apology for not locking the account
myself.  I have the same feelings you do about this, which
is what we've done in the past with mass mailings.

I didn't, mostly because I was in the middle of crud at work
and had gotten a message from Glenda about Grex being
dredfully slow, and then saw two messages (to help and
trouble) which clued me into what the problem might be.

So yes, I should have locked the account right then and there.
I'm sorry that I didn't.

That this belongs to a candidate running for the board makes it
a little weird, but that shouldn't matter.  Mass mailings have
never been tolerated, regardless of who they are.

--STeve Andre'

response 33 of 130:

Dec 3 18:49 UTC 2003

HAMMERED>!@# WHOA, _ST_EVE REALLY GOT TO JP2 THIS TIME AJAHA

response 35 of 130:

Dec 3 19:38 UTC 2003

Re #30:  Nope, Jamie's still a candidate.

I've configured the vote program to look for his campaign
statement in his jp2test account.  The vote program now
displays it.  Not having access to his member account
doesn't impede his campaign at this point.

response 37 of 130:

Dec 3 19:56 UTC 2003

From what I'd seen, it looked like other was explaining the actions of 
steve, and scott (as another staffer) was defending those actions.  I 
didn't know anyone else was involved at all.  Fortunately I didn't 
refer to any particular staffer in my previous comments.

It shouldn't matter who locked the account, or if even the whole staff 
concurs.  I think this should be a Board issue, not a staff issue.  I 
think the election is a more important event for Grex than an 
occurrance of someone sending a lot of e-mails.

I think jp2's intentions do matter.  Look at what he's been saying, in 
this item and others.  He's trying to get new members to sign up.  He 
may be going about it badly, or wrongly, but in this case I think his 
intentions seem good.  I'd view it much differently if I thought he was 
running for the Board in order to hide behind candidate status.

Jamie has been a thorn in my side, too.  He's been quite malicious 
toward Arbornet/M-Net for several months.  I'm not defending a buddy 
here on the basis of him being a great guy.

I think locking his account seems out of line, under the circumstances 
as described in this item, and considering the election in progress.  
It should be unlocked and returned to him.

response 39 of 130:

Dec 3 20:06 UTC 2003

37:  I object to "badly."  Don't forget, I once got 2000 new users in one day
for M-Net and about half a dozen of them became members.

response 41 of 130:

Dec 3 20:36 UTC 2003

I, for one, am satisfied that the staff is handling the situation
appropriately.

I don't think it's entirely a bad idea to survey nonmembers.  If Jamie had
proposed the idea in coop, and tried to build a consensus, and hopefully
ironed out the technical details of what to say and how often to send the
messages, it might have worked out well.  It might still work out well, if
he or someone else does that in the future.

BUT, he went about it in such a way that he was bound to piss people off. 
I suspect he knew that from the outset, and planned to use the resulting
flap to feed his persecution complex.  But whether or not he did doesn't
really matter.  The simple fact is that even if you do something with good
intentions, that doesn't mean it's a responsible thing to do.

I hope Jamie will propose the idea of a survey of nonmembers here in coop,
so we can discuss a way to do it that will be acceptable to everyone.

response 43 of 130:

Dec 3 21:36 UTC 2003

Re resp:22: Yes, that was one incident.

Are you saying that if another long-term Grexer who had less of a combative
reputation had done the same thing jp2 did, that their account would be
locked instead of a warning being given?  I know personally that I've done
stuff before that I shouldn't have, like receiving big email attachments or
taking up too much disk space, and I was always warned.  My account has
never been locked.


Re resp:27: Maybe blanket immunity is too strong a word.  But I think
politically it would have looked much better not to do it this way.  Jp2's
campaign probably would have failed anyway, but now he can blame Grex staff
for its failure.


Re resp:32: From newuser's introductory info:

   - Do not create mailing lists.

   - Do not send or receive more than 100 K of mail in a day.  Less is
better!

This should be a big, big hint that mass emailing isn't allowed, don't you
think?

response 45 of 130:

Dec 3 21:45 UTC 2003

re: 34:  408+ messages may have been sent as a result of your spam, 
but only a minute fraction of them have been handled by Grex.  List 
messages are exploded offsite.

response 47 of 130:

Dec 3 22:07 UTC 2003

Hmm.  Staff is exploded offsite, so I thought baff would be as well.  
We should correct that, for just such instances as this.