|
Grex > Coop12 > #95: Request for restoration of polytarp's account | |
|
| Author |
Message |
pgreen
|
|
Request for restoration of polytarp's account
| 
Mar 28 04:28 UTC 2002 |
I am making an official gobbily-goop request to have my username 'polytarp'
returned to me. I have not commited any 'crapfloods,' or 'mass-tels,' which
I assume where the reasons leading to the killing of my account. The only
reason to continue to deny me access to my account is petty-vengence, or
perhaps extreme laziness. Unless you believe restoring my account will cause
me to suddenly being a 'twit' again, I do not understand how you would have
a problem with my request.
|
| 38 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 1 of 38:
|
Mar 28 04:43 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
keesan
|
|
response 2 of 38:
|
Mar 28 19:42 UTC 2002 |
You cannot be as stupid as you are pretending to be.
|
russ
|
|
response 3 of 38:
|
Mar 29 00:00 UTC 2002 |
Re #0:
1.) The word is "gobbledygook".
2.) If you "assume where", be assured you should be here instead.
3.) "Petty vengeance" is not hyphenated.
4.) Next sentence no verb in first clause.
5.) Why should anyone lift a finger for you?
|
pgreen
|
|
response 4 of 38:
|
Mar 29 01:27 UTC 2002 |
Why should anyone 'lift a finger' for anyone? You're absolutly correct, now
that I think about it! For now on I'm not going to do anything for anyone
unless I get something in return. Once again you've changed my world! Thanks
for your help, Russel!
|
eeyore
|
|
response 5 of 38:
|
Mar 29 02:45 UTC 2002 |
Out of curiousity, why did you loose it in the first place?
|
pgreen
|
|
response 6 of 38:
|
Mar 29 03:09 UTC 2002 |
I lost the account for running programs which sent 'telegrams' to all users
accepting messages from me in a short amount of time.
|
scott
|
|
response 7 of 38:
|
Mar 29 03:47 UTC 2002 |
Right, it was tel-spamming. At least one subsequent account was used for the
same thing. Being a twit is OK, if annoying. Being an automated Uber-twit
is not allowed.
|
pgreen
|
|
response 8 of 38:
|
Mar 29 03:56 UTC 2002 |
If you are referring to the user 'naftee,' let me assure you that person is
not the same person as me. Do you believe that restoring my account would
in some way compel me to 'automated Uber-twit' status again? I certainly
still have the technical ability to mass-tel, yet I have not done so.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 9 of 38:
|
Mar 29 05:17 UTC 2002 |
I'm lifting a finger to the both of you...
|
flem
|
|
response 10 of 38:
|
Mar 29 05:18 UTC 2002 |
re #5: I don't know that she was necessarily referring to your account. :)
|
other
|
|
response 11 of 38:
|
Mar 29 06:43 UTC 2002 |
I have to say that this highlights an interesting feature of our resource
abuse response.
Actions taken to mitigate resource abuse are taken against particular
accounts, unless it can be established that a particular individual is
associated with multiple violating accounts.
In this light, we see that that our enforcement tactics are tied to the
actual account, rather than the user. Since the ACCOUNT polytarp was
responsible for the violations, the ACCOUNT has been locked, preventing
further abuse.
In practical terms, we have no way of knowing that the person using the
pgreen account is the same as the person who abused the polytarp account,
and unless the behavior is repeated, we won't. In either case, there is
no compelling cause to unlock the polytarp account.
|
pgreen
|
|
response 12 of 38:
|
Mar 29 14:01 UTC 2002 |
How does 'locking the account' prevent abuse unless the abuser willingly gives
up the abuse? Also, how would repetition of similar abuse constitute proof
that I am the same person as the one who used the polytarp account? Even if
I wasn't polytarp, I could easily emulate my abuse, as I'm sure could be said
about many people here.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 13 of 38:
|
Mar 29 14:04 UTC 2002 |
I vote not to unlock the account. I vote to support staff in a similar
action against any account that abuses Grex resources, whoever is
associated with the account. I vote to drop this discussion because it is
another waste of staff time dealing with this account.
|
pgreen
|
|
response 14 of 38:
|
Mar 29 14:08 UTC 2002 |
I vote to say I didn't know there was supposed to be a vote.
|
russ
|
|
response 15 of 38:
|
Mar 29 14:14 UTC 2002 |
(And that's all he lost. More's the pity...)
|
pgreen
|
|
response 16 of 38:
|
Mar 29 14:46 UTC 2002 |
(I wanna say 'Wa?' That's cryptic...)
|
gull
|
|
response 17 of 38:
|
Mar 29 15:13 UTC 2002 |
I vote to forget this item.
|
jp2
|
|
response 18 of 38:
|
Mar 29 17:27 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 19 of 38:
|
Mar 29 21:45 UTC 2002 |
Good luck. Send your money today!
|
slynne
|
|
response 20 of 38:
|
Apr 2 20:46 UTC 2002 |
Well Phil I hope you learned your lesson. Never do stuff with your main
account and always use a PSEUDO when you mass-tel.
|
pgreen
|
|
response 21 of 38:
|
Apr 2 21:17 UTC 2002 |
Exactly my point. Disabling my account does nothing to stop the 'problem.'
|
mdw
|
|
response 22 of 38:
|
Apr 3 06:58 UTC 2002 |
When I find people have made throw-away accounts to do something
noxious, especially when there are multiple such accounts, I can
generally identify one "real" account that's clearly associated with the
same person. When I find this is the case, I disable *all* the matching
accounts. For some reason, this seems to be generally more persuasive
than just disabling the throw-away account.
|
jp2
|
|
response 23 of 38:
|
Apr 3 17:34 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
cross
|
|
response 24 of 38:
|
Apr 3 21:01 UTC 2002 |
Regarding #22; Oh, fascinating. How do you do the pattern matching?
Correlating entry times and dates with IP's from wtmp or something?
|