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

Mar 21 04:51 UTC 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?

response 2 of 52:

Mar 21 05:39 UTC 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.

response 4 of 52:

Mar 21 20:34 UTC 2004

Nope.

response 6 of 52:

Mar 21 22:01 UTC 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.

response 8 of 52:

Mar 22 02:52 UTC 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.

response 10 of 52:

Mar 22 04:29 UTC 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

response 12 of 52:

Mar 22 17:06 UTC 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.

response 14 of 52:

Mar 22 20:26 UTC 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.)

response 16 of 52:

Mar 23 01:02 UTC 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?

response 18 of 52:

Mar 23 06:34 UTC 2004

Spoken from the supposed troublemaking kid.

response 20 of 52:

Mar 30 02:39 UTC 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.

response 22 of 52:

Mar 30 03:49 UTC 2004

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