response 68 of 163:

Sep 26 13:28 UTC 2000

"shame on you"?  Oh god, Willard, please tell me you aren't THAT juvenille.
If you put it on a system, it's not private.  It's not your computer.  And
the staff have a responsibility to maintain that system.  Fact, you ran both
idle-zapper programs and masstel programs.  If you want to deny it, go ahead,
but considering you have admitted the former so many time saying "but so
what!" and the latter you entered an item in agora about, there isn't much
point to it.  

The staff here have the right to get rid of those things they deem
unacceptable.  And you know that they are unacceptable.  You wouldn't put up
with it on M-net, don't expect special favors here.  You can cry "I'm bein'
oppressed" all you want, but the simple fact is that you did something that
was not allowed, and it was disposed of.

If you want private, run your own little system, keep all the root and staff
passwords to yourself, and hope that no little hacker messes it up.  There
is no expectation of privacy on a public forum that you don't own and have
the priviledge of having an account on.  If you don't want it here?  Move it.
You worried about your e-mail being rifled through, you're a smart guy,
.forward your mail.  But don't sit here and cry foul when you are fully aware
of the reprecutions of your actions.

The staff don't go through directories or files or email with the same abandon
that some businesses do.  It's their machine.  So grow up, or leave.  I'm sick
of this, and of you slandering people for doing their job.  It's not our
responsibility to clean up after you, but here we are, doing it.

response 70 of 163:

Sep 26 13:53 UTC 2000

and for those who don't know :vilify -fied -fying 1:  to lower in estimation
or importance 2: to utter slanderous and abusive statements against.  Defame
see Malign

Hmm....works for me.  Good word, Scott.

response 72 of 163:

Sep 26 14:28 UTC 2000

        Anyone who's seen Mike's entires in party (regrettably lost at this
point) when he was first running his idlezapper knows that he was fully aware
that he wasn't supposed to be running it.  

        And, Sunny, a little hacker *did* mess up the system Willard helps to
admin - haven't you been reading the recent news about Arbornet? 

response 74 of 163:

Sep 26 14:37 UTC 2000

I do remember reading about that.  Hmm...  Look at that.  Actual complaint,
to whining, to temper tantrum, back to the old Mike's behavior.  Wow.  Wasn't
the productive.

response 76 of 163:

Sep 26 14:42 UTC 2000

        That's an odd way of looking at things, considering root a "privilege".
It's correct in the technical sense, that it is a privilege for file and
process access, but it's not correct in the general sense, that it's some sort
of public trust that must be carefully guarded to prevent abuse.  There are
already laws to prevent people who shouldn't be filching around in your mail
from doing so (although your definition of "shouldn't be" might not agree with
the law's) but there is no guarantee anywhere that I'm aware of that you
should be able to run programs on someone else's system without their scrutiny
of what the program does and whether or not it is a potential security threat
or adversely affects the system.  

        M-net had a policy against images (and the policy was never written
in an AUP) even existing in users' home directories.  At one time, a cron job
ran through all files and checked for magic numbers indicating popular image
formats, though occasionally this restriction was ignored.  I believe GREX
has a similar, if not identical, policy regarding images on users' web pages,
and perhaps personal directories.

        Either way, good semantical confusion.

response 78 of 163:

Sep 26 14:44 UTC 2000

        Err, laws', not law's.

response 80 of 163:

Sep 26 16:19 UTC 2000

In the context of this item, M-net General item 253, starting about 
response 10, is a laff riot.  jp2 acknowledges that he and willard 
were booting people off the system for their behavior in party.
jp2 defends it as an appropriate response to "harrassment."

response 82 of 163:

Sep 26 17:31 UTC 2000

guess i'm being filtered.  anyone care to answer my question?

response 84 of 163:

Sep 26 18:48 UTC 2000

        What's m-net's AUP?

response 86 of 163:

Sep 26 19:28 UTC 2000

        From m-net general 253:

> Response 16: 
> Date: Tue, Sep 26, 2000 (10:43)
> From: buzzard@arbornet.org (buzzard)
> 
> Willard also felt the need to boot me off, several times yesterday, for
> disagreeing with his views. I also called him nasty names, however this is
> protected speech. I sent e-mail to EFF and they should be contacting Tod
> shortly.
> 
> Looks like Arbornet will be losing its blue ribbon rights thanks to Mike
> No-wood.

> Response 22: 
> Date: Tue, Sep 26, 2000 (11:18)
> From: Senator Howard (jp2)
> 
> A little bit of both. He was acting like a reall asshole in party but I
have
> also booted people for less. Typically they behave after one or two times
> through the process.

> Response 23: 
> Date: Tue, Sep 26, 2000 (11:45)
> From: Opium Ad Hoc (tanis)
> 
> As much as I would like to boot people someimtes, its kind of bullshit that
> you use your root privileges as such.

> Response 50: 
> Date: Tue, Sep 26, 2000 (14:46)
> From: Senator Howard (jp2)
> 
> Fucking with buzzard for sport is one thing. (Notice, he still isn't
> complaining about me...?) Look deeper, there is more going on here.
> 
> However, when a user tells me they are receiving harassing telegrams or
> hot chat requests even after the user has asked the offender to stop, the
> offender needs a kick in the ass. The user told me of the problem, so I
> politely but firmly informed the offender to stop then told the user to
> let me know if it happened again. Five minutes later I am informed it
> continued. So I telegramed the offender and said, I warned you, and now
> you are being kicked off and *BOOM* he was gone. He logs back in and
> telegrams me saying he cam kick me off too. Never one to let power go
> unexercised, I replied, "No, I'm in charge around here. See?" and there
> he went again. He behaved after that. This is not a freedom of speech
> issue. 

        So booting someone to "fuck with [them] ... for sport" is an
acceptable thing to do with a root account, and yet disabling a file that's
prohibited by an unwritten (but commonly understood, and understood by the
perpetrator) policy is unacceptable?

response 88 of 163:

Sep 26 20:05 UTC 2000

No, Michael, this is about you.  Aren't you glad?

response 90 of 163:

Sep 26 20:11 UTC 2000

        You haven't been following my posts.  I'm asking for a concrete
definition of what you consider to be abuse of a staff account, since you're
asking for a concrete definition of what users can and can't do.  I would be
very interested to see what kind of freenet could run where the staff had no
control over what programs users ran.