|
Grex > Coop11 > #47: Banning a site from Grex; a discussion of when to do this | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 21 new of 264 responses total. |
dpc
|
|
response 244 of 264:
| 
Jan 20 19:04 UTC 1999 |
Changing the Articles of Incorporation is easy. The Board passes a
resolution amending them. You send off an amendment form to the
state, along with a fee of--I think--$10. Or it may be free to
nonprofits.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 245 of 264:
|
Jan 20 19:23 UTC 1999 |
Not in a member-based non-profit Michigan corporation. A majority of
members (not just of members voting) are required to amend the Articles
of a member-based corporation (450.2611).
|
janc
|
|
response 246 of 264:
|
Jan 20 23:42 UTC 1999 |
I think you also have to send a copy of any changes in the articles of
incorporation to the IRS.
|
jazz
|
|
response 247 of 264:
|
Feb 19 13:36 UTC 1999 |
A number of years ago I wrote a policy recommendation for Arbornet that
summed up my feelings with regards to the same issues that are currently
affecting GREX. Arbornet experienced those issues first, and at least in my
memory suffered them to a greater degree. I wish I still had the original
text, but if memory suffices:
It is important for a non-profit to decide what it considers to be it's
goal, rather than simply openly providing services to the public; if you do
that, then not only will the nature of the system be determined by the whim
of the public (which I suppose is in of itself a goal), but the public will
also not be satisfied.
When it comes down to banning or restricting things, it's helpful to
ask - does this thing contribute to the goal? Does it consume resources that
are being used to further the goal? And, lastly, does it encourage users who
"bring back" to the system, in tangible financial ways, or in less-than
tangible ways by advancing the non-profit's goals.
If it furthers the goals of the non-profit, it is an expenditure, and
should, like any expenditure, be considered carefully.
If it does not further the goal of the non-profit, but does not consume
resources that are in contention, it's not worth worrying about.
If it does not further the goals of the non-profit, and consumes
resources, but doesn't provide a service or attraction for users who wind up
"giving back" to the non-profit, then it's interfering with the goals of the
non-profit and should be a serious candidate for restriction or banning.
But these are just my wonky ideas; I'm interested in comments.
|
scott
|
|
response 248 of 264:
|
Feb 19 15:47 UTC 1999 |
I like the idea of Grex as something like a public park. If the park fills
up with people flying kites, that is OK. If it fills up with picnicers, that
is OK too. A mix is good also. But I wouldn't want the park people to have
a "goal" such as "The park will be used for kite flying, and other use is
discouraged".
|
rcurl
|
|
response 249 of 264:
|
Feb 19 21:38 UTC 1999 |
Are dogs allowed?
|
dang
|
|
response 250 of 264:
|
Feb 19 22:44 UTC 1999 |
No. Definately not.
:)
|
scott
|
|
response 251 of 264:
|
Feb 19 22:52 UTC 1999 |
Dogs might need to be banned, if they poop all over the place or bite people.
That is a nice analogy for things like eggdrop bots, etc.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 252 of 264:
|
Feb 19 23:00 UTC 1999 |
re 247: I like the wording. Good thought. It should make the
GrexBoard better define the goals of Cyberspace, Inc. Such as:
Is this a UNIX 'free-fo-all' or is a shell account on lesser goal
than say, providing a free e-mail site. As a free e-mail site, it
is here for those who do not have internet providers, or for those
who prefer the privacy of Grex for their mail, say in the instance
of a company connection. This brings staff back to what is reasonable
for free? Message limits? Yes? stored mbox limits? Maybe. and
so on.
|
scott
|
|
response 253 of 264:
|
Feb 19 23:37 UTC 1999 |
Er, to clarify my take on dogs in the park as an analogy: We could ban dogs
if all dogs were a problem. If only a few dogs were a problem, we might go
after the owners of those dogs to handle the problem.
|
jazz
|
|
response 254 of 264:
|
Feb 24 17:20 UTC 1999 |
It's an appropriate metaphor; GREX isn't in as big of a need of
funding as Arbornet was at the time that I wrote that recommendation.
To extend the analogy, though, the owners of the dogs have refused to
discipline them; and the dogs have driven out several park regulars - now what
do you do?
|
lilmo
|
|
response 255 of 264:
|
Apr 14 00:15 UTC 1999 |
If this discussion is to be continued in its present form, it should be in
another item. This item is for discussing the IIT prblem(s), and the issues
that the whole situation raises.
Sorry.
|
mystix
|
|
response 256 of 264:
|
Apr 27 19:10 UTC 1999 |
i am a student from iit and got accesss to this place thru the proxy server
of our place even though the telnet service has been withdrawn.i would like
to point out one thing that banning out a place won't solve anything.say you
ban out iitkgp,then all i have to do is to connect to a place like diversion
and telnet here and BINGO therer goes GREX.the whole point is that since the
telnet access was anonymous,there was no way the authorities could have done
anything about it.now GREX can only be accessed thru the proxy server which
means the computer i am connecting from can be identified.then i think GREX
is safe at least from the perverted users from iitkgp.
as far as usage of GREX it is true that most of us use it for free e-maiol
facility.anyway,this whole incident was too bad and shoulln't have happened
just for a few wrong guys all the users had to suffer.
you are doing a great work in GREX.keep it up.
|
janc
|
|
response 257 of 264:
|
Apr 28 05:32 UTC 1999 |
We certainly never wanted a permanent ban, and regret that that happened.
Though if IIT really can't identify people who telnet out of there, then
maybe we are just as happy that that isn't possible anymore. We believe
sites must be able to take responsibility for policing the actions of
people who connect to the net through their site. We try very hard to
do that for people who use Grex for various kinds of access to the net.
If you can connect here via a proxy, then that is fine with us. We don't
want to ban any one. You are welcome here.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 258 of 264:
|
Apr 30 21:28 UTC 1999 |
The point was never to ban ppl, but to make sure that troublemakers could be
handled. Since troublemakers were coming through there anonymously, they
could not be identified (apparently), and not held accountable. They, (and
the majority of users from IIT who were NOT troublemakers), are welcome to
come in ways that allow for some tracking to be done at the other end, so that
trouble can be laid at the proper feet.
In short, welcome back!
|
polygon
|
|
response 259 of 264:
|
May 25 19:09 UTC 1999 |
Wow. Interesting item.
|
pfv
|
|
response 260 of 264:
|
May 25 19:53 UTC 1999 |
<shrug> Ban it, block it, and diversion as well..
Reap the accounts and save the space - they are not worth the
effort.
|
steve
|
|
response 261 of 264:
|
Aug 8 04:09 UTC 1999 |
I will disagree with everything Pete said in #260.
However, IIT is back with a new ip address and has been, since June 1st.
It's been nine weeks now since they got access, with little problem.
Now, I have a question: can I now delete the IIT accounts that hasven't
been logged into since November 20th or last year? Given anyone at IITKGP
has had 9.5 weeks now to log in (at least 390 have) I think we can safely
remove these accounts.
Back when we found out that IIT had blocked Grex on their side, we put
a stop to reaping of all IIT acocunts. This of course included the usual
amount of accounts that were used once and forgotten, people who graduated,
etc. We've been tying up disk space for some time now with this, and I
think its now OK for us to remove those IIT acounts that haven't been
touched in these 9.5 weeks since the ban was lifted. I've talked to some
IIT student, all of whom knew about Grex's usability very soon after it
was possible, so I don't think there are many people there who don't
know that they can use Grex.
If people think its OK, I'd like to remove these accounts now.
|
jshafer
|
|
response 262 of 264:
|
Aug 8 04:53 UTC 1999 |
Go for it...
|
scott
|
|
response 263 of 264:
|
Aug 8 11:49 UTC 1999 |
Sounds fine to me.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 264 of 264:
|
Aug 9 14:47 UTC 1999 |
Yes, do it.
|