Grex Oldcoop Conference

Item 158: What's the point, gelinas? Have you actually ever tried wondering whehter or not you're actually doing any good?

Entered by proof on Sun Mar 21 04:51:12 2004:

I was testing BBS.

I accidentally did something that would have made it LSIGHTLY hard for someone
to read a particular item.

I undid my action almost immedietly.

Soon after, gelinas had killed my account.


It's obvious I caused no harm, and had no intention to cause harm.  What's
the point in killing my account?
52 responses total.

#1 of 52 by soup on Sun Mar 21 05:24:23 2004:

aaha


#2 of 52 by proof on Sun Mar 21 05:39:14 2004:

Oh, wait, now that I think about it, it's not QUITE obvious enough that I
didn't have any intention to cause harm.  I'm sure Grexists will believe this
item is some sort of attempt to get gelinas removed from staff or whatever.
Oh well.  I'm not sure how I could show myself to be ernest in front of the
eyes of paranois of that degree.


#3 of 52 by richard on Sun Mar 21 20:12:28 2004:

perhaps there should be in Coop a regular "staff action against user" item
where every time a staffer takes a negative action against a user account,
they note it there and say why (or if security is involved, at least say in
general terms)  Is there such an item in the staff cf, and would having a
filtered version of such regularly in Coop be a good way of curtailing items
like this one where a user complains?  In that case, the user affected could
complain directly to the staffer publicly, in that item.  And then the new
policy could be that any new items created to complain about staff actions
would be deleted because they are supposed to complain in this "staff action"
item.


#4 of 52 by soup on Sun Mar 21 20:34:33 2004:

Nope.


#5 of 52 by twenex on Sun Mar 21 20:52:03 2004:

Good idea.

It's called "transparency", and we want more of it.


#6 of 52 by proof on Sun Mar 21 22:01:56 2004:

we:*:9:9:frankly:/dont/have/any/of/it:/here/on/grex.
no:*:0:0:one:/quite/knows/why/no/etc/passwd:/files/are/allowed/on/grex.


#7 of 52 by gelinas on Mon Mar 22 02:38:24 2004:

People have a privacy interest in their accounts being locked or deleted,
and the causes for that action.

I will only discuss the action taken against a specific user in public
_when that user asks in public_.  Unfortunately, that is not possible for
someone whose account has been locked:  how do we (the bbs-reading public)
determine that the new account is the same person?


#8 of 52 by proof on Mon Mar 22 02:52:53 2004:

Yet you've posted this:

#17 of 22: by Joseph L Gelinas (gelinas) on Fri, Jan 30, 2004 (18:44):
 That wouldn't do any real good; he has already demonstrated the ability to
 'launder' his connections to us.  If we were to try IP blocking, we'd soon
 be blocking a significant fraction of the Internet, I think.

about the polytarp account.  I think you should delete that, if it's against
privacy.

Needless to say, you're more than welcome to discuss any action taken against
this account.


#9 of 52 by proof on Mon Mar 22 02:56:58 2004:

I have posted a short copy of one of my own /etc/passwd files in Agora. 
Hopefully, after gelinas kills this account, we'll get the first decent
explanation of why it's dangerous to have such files on Grex.


#10 of 52 by richard on Mon Mar 22 04:29:22 2004:

actually I think that any time a staffer takes negative action against a user,
it is the interest of grex's other users.  A "staff action" item as I suggest
would help to clearly identify which staffers are more active than others in
staff activity and whether there are any identifiable trends in their actions
(such as persistent actions against particular users using different logins
.etc)  I see it as a way of trying to keep things open and above board.  And
like I said, staff can use general terms if security or privacy concerns are
apparent in the reasons for the staff action against an account.  But I think
if an account has been deleted it need not be a state secret.  There is
nothing in the bylaws which says that users are entitled to anonymity when
staff takes action against them.  As long as discretion is used in terms of
particulars, staffers should be able to identify who and to what they are
doing


#11 of 52 by twenex on Mon Mar 22 04:32:08 2004:

Ahem. No. Arbitary actions against random users are not good. Are we supposed
to call out the militia?


#12 of 52 by albaugh on Mon Mar 22 17:06:40 2004:

Forget it, richard.  There are staff actions taken all the time to "protect"
grex that we don't need to know about.  The only reason it comes up here is
that these morons keep causing trouble.


#13 of 52 by proof on Mon Mar 22 20:25:19 2004:

No-one's protecting ANYTHING, let alone Grex, by removing /etc/passwd files
from Grex.


#14 of 52 by proof on Mon Mar 22 20:26:42 2004:

(it should also be fairly clear that killing my accoutns and blocking my IPs,
but still allowing me access, isn't helping Grex.  gelinas is not helping
Grex.  this is self-evident.)


#15 of 52 by tod on Mon Mar 22 20:55:27 2004:

This response has been erased.



#16 of 52 by richard on Tue Mar 23 01:02:55 2004:

re: #12..albaugh, I agree that there are staff actions we don't need to know
about but unfortunately it seems like these same people are going to keep
trying to cause trouble by entering items bashign staff over staff actions.
All I was saying is that if there was a "staff actions/respond to staff
actions" item, then all these user complaints could be confined to that item,
and any other items entered to complain like that could be deleted.  Wouldn't
that make coop a more pleasant and less aggravating read?


#17 of 52 by proof on Tue Mar 23 03:58:57 2004:

This should be linked to parenting.


#18 of 52 by jaklumen on Tue Mar 23 06:34:00 2004:

Spoken from the supposed troublemaking kid.


#19 of 52 by cmcgee on Tue Mar 23 13:54:15 2004:

If youthink creating an item about this would confine user complaints to a
single item, you're dreaming.


#20 of 52 by mdw on Tue Mar 30 02:39:09 2004:

There's a number of problems with "publishing" names or providing other
public information that could be used to identify users who did bad
things.  The first is the question of privacy -- how much expectation
should users have here that affairs they obviously took pains to
disclose from prying eyes should suddenly become public?  I don't know a
lot of the case law here, but I suspect ECPA prevents us from saying
much.  There may be other newer laws that further restrict what we can
do.  The second is a question of effectiveness.  It seems pretty clear
that the public pillory went out long ago, and there's little evidence
to suggest many vandals would care if we were to publish their names.
Keep in mind they probably didn't provide us any "real" details in the
first place.  The 3rd problem is that such a list could in fact
backfire.  In the 19th century Jesse James and other low-life fringe
scum became practically public heroes, mostly through inappropriate
publicity campaigns.  We already have at least one person who clearly
likes to do bad stuff purely to waste people's time.  A public list
might merely increase this trend.


#21 of 52 by jp2 on Tue Mar 30 03:00:18 2004:

This response has been erased.



#22 of 52 by mdw on Tue Mar 30 03:49:43 2004:

Object all you like, but he still sucked as a family provider.


#23 of 52 by jp2 on Tue Mar 30 14:08:24 2004:

This response has been erased.



#24 of 52 by jp2 on Tue Mar 30 14:09:37 2004:

This response has been erased.



#25 of 52 by mdw on Tue Mar 30 19:26:32 2004:

His widow nearly starved to death.


#26 of 52 by jp2 on Tue Mar 30 20:05:31 2004:

This response has been erased.



#27 of 52 by parcel on Tue Mar 30 20:24:35 2004:

HE OUTLIVED HIS WIDOW BY 50-odd YEARS?!!?!


   YES< I AGREE< THEY WERE ODD< HUH

(AHAHAHAHA)


#28 of 52 by gelinas on Tue Mar 30 21:18:26 2004:

(Jesse James of the James-Younger Gang was 34 years old when he was killed
in 1882.  Or are you talking about a different Jesse James, jp2?)


#29 of 52 by jp2 on Tue Mar 30 21:30:07 2004:

This response has been erased.



#30 of 52 by parcel on Tue Mar 30 21:35:23 2004:

and gelinas fell for it.


#31 of 52 by mdw on Tue Mar 30 22:16:34 2004:

Apparently jp2 is a conspiracy fan.  In any event, if Jesse James
outlived his "widow" by 50 years, that makes him not only a poor family
provider, but a 1st class louse.  After Jesse's supposed death in 1882,
his wife Zerelda (Zee) Mimms had serious financial and health problems,
and died in 1900--some say of a "broken heart".


#32 of 52 by twenex on Tue Mar 30 22:38:44 2004:

Shhh! Marcus! Don't call jp2 a conspiracy fan! He might start thinking there's
a *conspiracy* against him!


#33 of 52 by tod on Tue Mar 30 23:07:09 2004:

re #29
That was Billy the Kid.


#34 of 52 by jp2 on Tue Mar 30 23:28:28 2004:

This response has been erased.



#35 of 52 by tod on Tue Mar 30 23:29:41 2004:

Do you own the Cher album?


#36 of 52 by twenex on Tue Mar 30 23:36:48 2004:

Hahahahahahahah :-)


#37 of 52 by jp2 on Wed Mar 31 00:55:03 2004:

This response has been erased.



#38 of 52 by mdw on Wed Mar 31 07:13:29 2004:

Another interesting Jesse James factoid: Zerelda Amanda Mimms was also
his first cousin.

Those into conspiracy theories might want to check out:
 http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr39.html
 http://www.shout.net/~bigred/JesJames.htm
If you prefer contemporary newspaper accounts, try:
 http://www.rootsweb.com/~oklawmen/outlaws/jjames.htm

Of course, assuming you buy the conspiracy theory, then that makes Jesse
James not just a murdering louse, but an actual traitor to this country,
which would appear to even further reduce his reputation.


#39 of 52 by tod on Wed Mar 31 19:22:11 2004:

re #37
No creme de menth mousse for you, sailor!


#40 of 52 by soup on Wed Mar 31 20:20:16 2004:

 :(


#41 of 52 by gregb on Wed Apr 7 18:17:41 2004:

Re. 34:  Then you must know Jesse James of Monster Garage, who claims 
he's the great grandson of JJ the first.


#42 of 52 by jp2 on Wed Apr 7 18:41:18 2004:

This response has been erased.



#43 of 52 by tod on Wed Apr 7 19:39:02 2004:

Jesse is a girl name


#44 of 52 by other on Thu Apr 8 02:08:59 2004:

My girl is a Jessie.  (That's her full legal first name.)


#45 of 52 by gregb on Thu Apr 8 17:42:30 2004:

There are names that are not gender-specific anymore.  Take the 
actress, Michael Lernerd<SP>, for example.


#46 of 52 by twenex on Thu Apr 8 20:28:22 2004:

There are names that are not gender-specific anymore.

No there aren't. There are just names that are misused.


#47 of 52 by gelinas on Thu Apr 8 20:39:40 2004:

You can hear the difference between "Michel" and "Michelle"?


#48 of 52 by realugly on Thu Apr 8 22:18:38 2004:

You can hear the difference between Michel and Michelle in English, and
Michelle and Michel in French, but not Michel in French and Michelle in
English.  Except one's spoke in a French accent.


#49 of 52 by realugly on Thu Apr 8 22:22:21 2004:

And but also:  They're still differenames simply because they have different
spellings, but no-one needs to bother to find an actual example in THIS case,
because:

                It's axiomatic.  twenex is broken.  he hasn't aquired the
proper cultural imprints to make him realise there are androgenous names (if
only realugly.  that's a name which a male'd probably use, but, for god
(another name that's sometimes callled androgenous!!!) 's sake, twenex, it's
androgenous and you fucking know it.  get culturally imprintied, scumball.


#50 of 52 by soup on Fri Apr 9 04:39:31 2004:

Monster Garage is an excellent show


#51 of 52 by gregb on Fri Apr 23 16:04:59 2004:

The last ep of Monster House, one of the build crew was also on MG, 
and he was just as troublesome there.


#52 of 52 by jesuit on Wed May 17 02:14:59 2006:

TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: