It appears that my account, jp2, has been frozen. My email forwarding has been terminated. Further, my election statement has been removed from display in the vote program. This places in a clear and undisputable disadvantage in the election. I demand immediate corrective action in that my account be reinstated and that my campaign statement be returned to public viewing. Is this the way you treat all users who may disagree with you when they pose a credible threat to the governance structure?130 responses total.
QUICK< CENSOR THIS SHIT
(By the way, this is bloody exciting.)
As a member of Grex's staff and Board, I demand an explanation.
Date: 2 December 2003 5:24:08 PM EST
To: Tao Xiao Sa <jp2>
Calling Greg's (flem) comment a suggestion to spam recent users is a
gross and cynical attempt to evade responsibility for your own
choice to abuse Grex's resources. There have been hundreds if not
thousands of occasions in Grex history on which mass email to some
subset of users has been considered and rejected as a means to
communicate something of importance to the system. The reasons for
rejecting this method have not changed, and your choice to ignore
them ought to result in your account being locked. Since it has
not, I can only imagine that you have been given special treatment
because your *apparent* motives are honorable, but personally, I
cannot find any reason to believe that your wishes with regard to
Grex can even begin to approximate anything honorable.
You have been warned.
On 2 Dec 2003, at 3:55 PM, Tao Xiao Sa wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, STeve Andre' wrote:
> > You know, spamming Grex with 1,836 copies of this email is
> > NOT a reaonable thing to do. Glenda informed me that the
> > load average was up around 28, and after getting your mail
> > to "help" (see below) it didn't take too long to figure out what
> > was going on.
> > This is an absolute mis-use of Grex's resources. Thanks for
> > making Grex slower than it already was.
> How did you get mail to help? I only sent it out to users logged
> in over the past 36 hours.
> There were only 909. You should also note that Board member flem
> suggested this:
If Jamie really wanted to do something useful to Grex, he should
spend some time talking to regular users who are not members and
finding out why they are not members, and what we could do to
entice them to become members.
> Wait until you see the data I am getting back. I've already
> convinced at least three people to sign up :)
AHAHAHA!! THIS IS GREAT
So wait, wait, wait, let me get this straight. I receive a warning, then despite no further infraction of your secret rule set, I then get my access yanked? Could I ask under which section of the Bylaws the staff can unilaterally limit a member's rights and privleges?
It should be noted that I've fucked over Grex multiple times much more destructive and ill-intentioned than this, and NONE of the times ended with my account being frozen.
(what e-mail?)
Valerie has claimed that she was attempting to resolve an emergency situation. This is despite the fact that the action she took was several hours after the supposed "emergency" was over. This is also despite the fact at least one staff member was aware of it at the time and chose to do nothing. Sorry, but this is not the staff acting to prevent abuse. Grex has no terms of service or acceptable use policy that you can even fall back on. This is punishment for daring to think against the Grex way. My membership rights have been suspended. My campaign has been intentionally sabotaged by the Grex staff by preventing my candidate statement from being seen inside the vote program. And an unknown number of users have emailed me asking how to become members, and they are waiting for responses. Wait, it just hit me. You guys don't actually want new members, do you?
I don't think staff sabotaged your campaign. I think you sabotaged your own campaign a long time ago. That said, I find this troubling and I'd like to see a good explanation from the staff members involved.
(Incidentally, when you said you'd sent out 900 email messages my first thought *was*, "geez, that sounds like spamming.")
Sending out mass mail is an abuse of grex. Abuse of grex results in the account being locked. jp2 sent out mass mail. jp2 was locked.
The text shown during the newuser process specifically mentions email abuse. Since Jamie apparently ran newuser to create the "jp2test" account, he can hardly claim that this is some "secret" rule.
Of all the responses I received, nobody complained about the fact they were being asked what Grex could do to make them happier users. Lots, and I mean lots asked how to become members. There are at least 10 sitting in my inbox that I had not had the chance to respond to. And over the past 12 hours (or so) an unknown number of new messages have come in. Someone needs to respond to these and I predict at least four new members as a result of this.
I think what jp2 did showed poor judgement, but I think it probably deserved a warning, not the loss of his account. If he did it again after being warned, then I could see locking out his account. It looks to me like staff has lately been taking more severe action against people whose conference items they happen not to like than they would against other users, and I find that really troubling.
Basically you're arguing that "the ends justify the means", which I consider to be a cop-out at best. You behaved in a way which you know is not acceptable, and now you're claiming that it is for the good of Grex instead of admitting that you abused the system.
(gull slipped in - I was responding to Jamie's #14)
1. I don't think it's appropriate to lock out the account of a Board candidate while an election is in progress. If that's to be done, it seems to me it should be by vote of the Board, not by a staff member acting on his own. There's no precedent for this set of circumstances. There are no rules protecting a candidate; or giving either a candidate, or a Board member, any special privileges. There's no doubt that having his account locked out will affect jp2's chances in the election. I think that fact has to be considered. 2. I think jp2 did something stupid. I think it was irresponsible; he should have known better than that. Even so, I don't see any reason to believe it was intended as an assault on Grex. I'm reluctant to criticize the staff when they're acting to prevent abuse of system resources. However, just this one time, I'd like to ask the staff to immediately restore jp2's account.
The same thing has been happening on M-Net for years. It concerns me, too. Many here hate me, and I am willing to accept that. Some of it is justified. Some of it is completely unreasonable. To each their own. But there has been a clear pattern emerging with regard to the way staff treats offenders.
Slippage, I was responding to 15.
16: Have you even seen the message that was sent?
Re 21: The message text doesn't matter. What matters is your deliberate abuse of Grex's email system, and how the issue is resolved. Re 15 (gull): Accusing staff of playing favorites... do you have any specific incidents in mind? The only one I can think of is the whole polytarp issue, where there's an individual who goes out of his/her way to be a twit in conferences, but whose account(s) were locked for legititmate reasons.
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.
Scott, I'm stating outright it's inappropriate for the staff to scuttle a Board candidate's election campaign. That seems to be the pressing issue, from my perspective. I'm very uncomfortable with the way this has handled and the effects it will have. I am not trying to stir up trouble for the sake of sparking discussion. I have some policy views which are not widely accepted and have vigorously pursued them in the past, however, for the most part, I am a longtime mainstream user of Grex. And this issue has nothing to do with those other issues. I am a member solely in order to support Grex, and contribute money and auction items when appropriate or when requested. I think I deserve some respect for my record and background I think I deserve some attention when I write of my discomfort for what is happening here. I think it is very inappropriate to dismiss my comments with references to kids combatting boredom. I'm not bored, I'm not a kid and I'm not a troublemaker.
(I read Scott's esponse as referring to Jamie as "the kid", not you.)
re 21 THIS IS EXHIBIT A <> CAPABLE OF A CONVICTION OF JP2!!!@()* Subject: Greetings from Grex Candidate jp2 Hello, my name is James Howard and I am currently running for election to the Board of Directors here at Grex. I picked a few of you who have logged in recently to ask a question. I see that you are currently not a member of Grex. I am wondering if you would be interested in becoming a member, or if not, what could Grex do you make you interested in becoming a member? Thank you, James
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.
1. Whether or not people minded receiving the spam is beside the point. Grex's limited ability to handle it is the primary concern. 2. Hundreds of abusers per month are locked with no warning for similar abuse of resources. I wrote what I wrote because I believed jp2 had not been locked when he should have, but the action locking his account merely came later. 3. Candidacy for the board, or for that matter any difference of opinion with the majority, has absolutely no weight in consideration of appropriate response to abuse of the system. The numbers of abusers are simply too great and the time required to deal with them too extensive to be making exceptions.
(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.
This response has been erased.
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'
This response has been erased.
HAMMERED>!@# WHOA, _ST_EVE REALLY GOT TO JP2 THIS TIME AJAHA
32: No. If anyone here loves statistics, the messages in question totaled 909. As of right now, 480 have been sent among myself, the Board, and staff regarding it.
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.
R. 27: Please apologise. I would do nothing of the sort, and feel hurt by your maligning.
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.
I disagree. I think staff did the right thing. Board candidacy does not give you any special exemption from regular Grex policies.
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.
Re 37: I'm not a staffer, nor a board member. I used to be both, but currently I'm neither.
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.
When aren't you satisfied that the staff is handling everything correctly?
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?
The end, in this case, does not justify the means. The system was so bogged down that it was next to impossible to log in. I tried logging in for more than 30 minutes before I could get a connection. Telnet kept timing out before I even got to the login prompt. I finally managed to get in via backtalk, looked and saw that the load averages were pushing 40 and called STeve. Backtalk was also impossibly slow. I was coming in from a fast connection at WCC during a break between classes. If I couldn't get in before timing out, there were a lot more that couldn't either. That pisses off members and more potential members than it will garner. Anyone who has been around Grex and Mnet for as long as Jamie has know better and shouldn't use the excuse that he was never 'personally' told not to to justify doing it.
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.
No, I just checked. baff@grex.org is exploded locally, then some recipients are delivered off-site (your's, for instance). But Grex still has to process that mail.
Hmm. Staff is exploded offsite, so I thought baff would be as well. We should correct that, for just such instances as this.
I THINKL WE SHOULD GET RID OF "EXPLODING E_MAIL BOMBS" ALL TOGETHER< ARE YOU ALL TOGETHER WITH ME ON THIS ISSUE?
Re #42: Yes, absolutely, if anyone else had sent spam of the magnitude that Jamie did, their account would have been locked. His reputation was not a factor in the staff's action.
Re 43: There's a big difference between spamming and just using too much disk space or getting huge attachments. Generally the disk stuff usually happens by accidenct or lack of computer knowledge. Spamming or mailbombing requires one to actually write or download a script and then run it - obviously there's clear intent to abuse the system.
Re 49> You may like to think so, but I doubt that would have happened. Let's say it was mary's account that sent the spam. I'm pretty sure staff would have just sent a warning. It's easy to deny that you would now, but you know that's what woul have happened.
This response has been erased.
Frankly, I didn't think Old Grex was this clever. First, a random Board Member invited, in language vague enough to later deny it, jp2 to send E-mails to new users imploring them to become members. Then, Staff confused the issue by having each member doing something entirely different. Gelinas wouldn't say what happened, while other posted and bragged about it all over BBS; one staff member ignored it, while another received calls from his wife about it; other gave jp2 a warning, while others supported punishment. These manourveres were so successful that we still have no idea, other than a rumour that it was a staff member who won't defend her actions, who actually splatted jp2's account. Now, Staff's pretending jp2, someone who's donated time and money to Grex, broke a rule by following the directions of a Board Member! I'm glad you see through it too, tod.
Well, I'm not sure what "gorilla dust" is, but I do believe it's the truth that the staff regularly locks accounts of people who send the volume of mail that Jamie did, without a warning. I don't know how to dispell this kind of conspiracy theory. Sapna, what would it take to convince you that what Valerie did had nothing to do with who was sending the spam?
Aruba, why do you, personally, support the hijacking of the election?
This response has been erased.
Hmm.... other is a staff member of sorts, as partyadm, but does not have the access to lock accounts. I'm new enough on staff that I wait for the more experienced to offer explanations. I've not run newuser lately, but it *does* provide guidelines on acceptable use. Finishing newuser and then logging in is acceptance of the conditions of use. This is the second time in recent memory that a *member's* account has been locked for mass-mailing. The last time, the treasurer asked to be notified when (or was it before?) a member's account was locked. I looks to me like people who aren't particularly liked get MORE leniency than others. STeve could (and admits should) have locked the account, but didn't.
Mark, I'm not saying that Valerie locked jp2's account becuase of some dis-like she has for him over his ideas or campaigning style. Frankly, I'm not even sure that Valerie is even involved that much in the Grex online community (except for her baby diary) to really know what's going on. But you have to admit that if she saw that it was remmers or mary or someone she knew sending the spam she she would have warned them rather than just splat them. Of course that would stem from the fact that she'd prolly think someone hacked their account or something. Such a benefit of doubt would not be extended to someone she didn't know. Which again isn't quite right. Especially since all users are equal yadda yadda yadda. To tell the truth I don't really blame her. She doesn't know jp2, what he stands for and I don't know whether he's even standing for an election. She's a busy woman. Anyhow, after this whole thing came out, the way people have justified the splatting is apalling. no one gave a thought to the reason bwhind the "spamming" (I'm not sure it's even spamming, but again we could split hairs on what is the actual definition of spam) Again, I pretty much think that if it was someone else like say me who did something like this, I woul have gotten a severe warning and had my account restored.
Was the treasurer notified when jp2's account was lost (either before or when)? STeve admits to not locking jp22'account because he was busy, not because he felt he deserved more leniency.
The treasurer is a member of the Board and so was notified at the same time as everyone else: valerie reported what she did when she did it. If a staff member thinks another staff or board member's account has been hacked, the right thing to do is to lock the account immediately. I'd be *very* surprised were the account *not* locked.
Re 51: If (to use your example) Mary's account was found spamming, it almost certainly *would* be locked. I would have, anyway.
Someone said they received huge attachments. Icannot receive any over about 70K, the mail just gets rejected, then people write to ask why, and I give them my webmail address and it does not happen again from the same person. Most days I receive over 100K of spam. Is there some way to program things to make it impossible to send out mail to more than 10 people at a time?
I think all staff members who do not respond regularily to the coop item when there is an issue should be removed from GreX staff.
Yeah. M-Net was even willing to GET RID OF ITS ENTIRE BOARD OF DIRECTORS because they didn't read enough police.cf.
56: If it helps, I have twice asked the Board and Staff, today, what X is, and have received no response whatsoever.
X depends on the means of sending. If you were to sit down and individually type each email in and send it to one or two addresses, you could do that all day without getting into trouble. If you wrote a script to send 25, you probably wouldn't get noticed, but it would still be an abuse. Are you looking for a specific X so you could regularly send X-1?
He's looking for how many mails over what period of time constitutes a spam. He made that quite clear.
Re #58, #60: Joe's right. If a staff member noticed that my account was being used for some activity that violated terms of use or was seriously impacting system performance, I would hope that they'd lock my account immediately. It would either be because I'd made a mistake and done something unintentionally or because my account had been broken into. In situations like that, it's best to assume the worst and straighten it out later.
We used to send out a monthly newsletter (text, about 1-2K) to close to 100 people and nobody objected. It did not require a script.
Tod: The limit that newuser gives is 100K of mail per day.
Did jp2 send more than 100K? I doubt it.
Re resp:52: I disagree that there are no acceptable use guidelines. See resp:43. If jp2's actions were actually making the system unusable, not just potentially annoying people, then I understand and support staff's actions. One person can't be allowed to load the system so heavily that no one else can use it.
This response has been erased.
So you knew the limit and you went *far* in excess of it. Sounds to me like you got exactly what was coming to you. I don't think there should be any kind of exemption for election candidates. I don't want Grex election spam any more than I want Pitt Student Government election spam, or Presidential election spam. . . .
This response has been erased.
I think all of the staff is both benevolent and competent. I don't think there are any bad intentions from the staff. I vehemently disagree with resp:52. My concern was for the election. I was under the impression Jamie could not receive votes because the jp2 account had been disabled. That appears to have been a bad assumption on my part. (You folks are better at this than I thought.) I still don't see any malicious intent by jp2. If he apologizes and promises not to do it again, would you reinstate his account?
This response has been erased.
That's good. It does leave a question or two in my mind, though: Did you know it was against Grex system policy to send mass e-mails? Did you know it would cause a big drain for the system? If not, with your background, how could you not have known?
This response has been erased.
It's called 'nice' , n00b.
nice wouldn't have helped either, probably, if the problem was sendmail using up too much CPU trying to make all the deliveries.
This response has been erased.
I've never seen the load averages jump over 6 or 7 when mass-mailing with nice.
On Grex?
Yes.
By the way, all the accounts that recieved the mail were off-site. I think there was a sleep process as well. Only a person who didn't care about how the system would run would neglect those two points.
This response has been erased.
I hope you're moving that mail off-site.
This response has been erased.
If the email size limit wasn't *in* newuser at the time jp2 registered, how was he tohave known? And besides Jamie, how is anyone that has registered that long ago supposed to know the limit on email?
jp2's probably storing that 5mb odd replied mail on-site, thus filling up user partitions. Once again, jp2's back to his old tricks. When will you people learn.
When we sent out 100 copies of a message it was for the Kiwanis club. Would it have been better to space them out over a few days? (#69)
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Oh, I'm not saying that the fact that this information wasn't available at the time that jp registered should acquit him of wht he did. Just curious as to how people should get to know that certain things like mass-emailing is not acceptable if they weren't told when they made their account and were never told or there was no chance to read about it elsewhere
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Grex also suffers "collateral damage" from mass mailers -- they tend to result in us getting blacklisted by SpamCop. SpamCop only seems to need one complaint to trigger this.
This response has been erased.
And your point is?
This response has been erased.
Not quite when, is it.
First of all, I really do not care what M-Net does. Secondly, Jamie, you shot yourself in the foot by your own actions, no one else's. Impulsive behavior screwed you over temporarily. Did it not occur to you to wait until after the election and try to work with the board--either as a board member or as a member of grex--to get something like this started and see if staff could be alerted? It's not staff's fault that your election got temporarily derailed. Can you, for once, stop playing the martyr? It doesn't wear very well one you.
Heh, there's a part of me that thinks he was afraid we might actually elect him this time, and sabotaged himself deliberately. But most of me thinks he just likes making trouble.
I think he really did care this once. And made very poor judgement on how to go about it. His account was locked, and after reading all responses concerning this, I'm satisfied with the fact that the right thing was done. The voting program was pointed to hist statement, and his account later restored. All of these I'm satisfied with. The election is over, and I'll go by the outcome, whether he gets elected or not. I don't think having his account locked for that one day affected the outcome with regards to his count of votes. Now can we drop this issue?
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
/e joins the conspiracy. Uhm, who is this conspiracy against?
This response has been erased.
Sapna: I agree, I think he did care. He just didn't think ahead.
Well, at least something constructive came of this. Policies regarding usage limits are now easy to get to online outside of the newuser program, with a pointer to them in the motd.
As a proud member of the Conspiracy to Prevent Jp2 from Being Elected, I would like to thank our president, jp2, for all his hard work during this election. We couldn't have done it without you. ;)
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
I'd like to claim credit for jp2's loss. I contend that without my clever counter-campaign, he would've won.
This response has been erased.
I take it results are posted in an item I haven't gotten to yet? Re 113> Besides having the limits posted and made accessible, which is a very good idea, I'd like to think that some of the responses Jamie got, and the data he collected could be looked into and acted upon. I'm not saying things need to change right now, but it would be sad to see it all swept under a rug.
This response has been erased.
I'd like to thank Hans Blix for my loss at the polls. I don't know why exactly, but I'm sure he's got something to do with it. I think the data, regardless of the furor that sending out the messages caused, should be used, should jp2 decide to give the results out for perusal, which he is doing. There's no sense in wasting decent data, at least for the purposes of analysis.
Re 121: well, they were also posted in the MOTD ... but beyond that, yes, in item 25 (in coop).
Thanks, I got to the item in question :)
annoying.
allo, styles
hullo, parcel & styles
allo, soup
TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE
You have several choices: