response 25 of 132:

Nov 3 17:31 UTC 2003

Regarding #21; I'm not taking it personally.  But what I am saying is that
I'm not going to waste a lot of time *unlocking* accounts for people who
(a) have other access to the system, and (b) clearly aren't interested in
getting their accounts back anyway.

response 27 of 132:

Nov 3 22:18 UTC 2003

re 25 But you'll waste as much time as you want locking accounts of users who
you find annoying, won't you?

re 21 Actually, it's a natural extension of GreXism; ban and splat users who
are "annoying".

response 29 of 132:

Nov 3 23:00 UTC 2003

If that (#27) were the case, there'd be no more than five or six 
people on 
Grex.

Dan, there is a very fine line which distinguishes your actions from 
similar one in prior cases.  I think that line separates actions 
against users who have abused the system resources from actions 
designed to prevent abuses with debatable (but definitely nonzero) 
likelihood of happening in the future.

Grex has traditionally taken a very conservative approach in dealing 
with these circumstances in order to avoid setting a precedent of 
crossing that line unnecessarily.  This means the system takes more 
abuse in the short term than it might otherwise, but it probably 
also increases long-term stability.

Comments users make online are best regarding as contributing 
circumstances supporting an action, and otherwise treated with all 
the regard they deserve (i.e. ignored).  No matter how persistently 
annoying a user may be, our policy is to respect that user's right 
to be so, so long as it is by their words that they annoy and not by 
means of recognized abuses of the system.

I think you responded appropriately to a situation, but with only a 
bit more zeal than greater experience might have rendered.  
Certainly, you should not take these comments and others in similar 
vein as attacks or expressions of disapproval of your choice to 
respond, but rather as constructive feedback which you can make use 
of in future decisions.

response 31 of 132:

Nov 3 23:15 UTC 2003

And you are a stupid ignorant fuck.  What of it?

response 33 of 132:

Nov 4 01:06 UTC 2003

Regarding #29; No, I appreciate the criticism.  Constructive criticism
is perfectly fine with me.  Like I said, I'm really not taking any of
this personally.  However, there does seem to be some confusion as to
what exactly I was up to, so let me try to clarify that here.  What I
did was intended to lock out a vandal who had purposely tried to attack
the system's resources (by filling up the disk in an attempt to frame
another user).  If dah had never posted to the BBS before, yet had filled
up the disk, I don't think we would have treated him any differently.
We have a long-standing precedent for locking or otherwise deleting the
accounts of vandals who attempt to damage the system.  If they continue
to login, we block their IP addresses.

There are, in this case, I think three distinctions:  (1) The user
in question is an active user of the BBS.  (2) In a case of mistaken
identity, another user got locked out as well.  (3) Both users in
question complained.

Of these, perhaps only (2) and the relevant part of (3) are significant,
since I don't think we've crossed any lines by blocking or otherwise
disabling the accounts of dah/polytarp/scholar, who acted as a vandal in
this case (and who, for the record, publically admitted it in party on
m-net): it's a case of dealing with vandals pretty much as we always
have; if you fill up the disks, we lock your account.  The case of
naftee/soup/salad/asddsa/dsaasd is slightly different, in that it really
was a mistake to lock his various accounts (by the way, he told me the
`naftee' login has been locked for over a month, not by me).

So, to me, the only real question is how to solve that problem.  I was
willing to reinstate his accounts, but it seemed to me like he wasn't that
interested in getting them back.  So, I decided to punt and just not waste
any time on it.  If he wants them back, fine; someone else can track him
down and try and figure it out (and possibly fix his TV at the same time).
If not, fine too.  I feel no need to spend anymore time on the matter,
trying to track him down and see what he wants, or otherwise play games.
If another staffer wants to do that, by all means, go right ahead.

response 35 of 132:

Nov 4 02:55 UTC 2003

polytarp didn't do that.

response 37 of 132:

Nov 5 01:47 UTC 2003

Okay, I unlocked the `naftee' account and sent the new password to salad.

As for my login name....  Well, it's my last name, too.  And that's a
shortened version of `Crossroads'.  As far as I know, it has nothing to
do with either anger or religion, but simply to mark where two roads
intersect.

response 39 of 132:

Nov 5 04:32 UTC 2003

Will NextGreX log full IPs and hostnames of incoming users?

response 41 of 132:

Nov 5 05:06 UTC 2003

Dye-it.

response 43 of 132:

Nov 5 19:20 UTC 2003

It should be noted that cross banned all of Canada's largest ISP, 
Sympatico, simply to get rid of a single user.

response 45 of 132:

Nov 6 03:14 UTC 2003

It has to do with it, because it should be noted that cross just banned
Cogeco, Canada's second largest ISP, to get rid of a single user, who he
hasn't really got rid of.

response 47 of 132:

Nov 6 19:13 UTC 2003

Yeah, you 'just' banned most everything.

response 49 of 132:

Nov 6 23:44 UTC 2003

polytarp, make up your mind, which ISP did cross ban?