|
Grex > Coop13 > #344: Why does Grex allow a known computer vandal to be a member of its staff? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
scholar
|
|
Why does Grex allow a known computer vandal to be a member of its staff?
| 
Aug 2 05:51 UTC 2006 |
Apparently, remmers recently vandalised M-Net by killing an item that had
responses from other people, which is a violation of the rules of that
system. Because of the whole fiasco that started when valerie decided to
vandalize Grex, remmers can't possibly claim to be ignorant of the
possibility that such rules exist and that violating them can be a very
serious disruption to a BBS.
Because he is a known vandal, all of Prof. Remmers's staff privileges on Grex
should be revoked.
|
| 39 responses total. |
nharmon
|
|
response 1 of 39:
|
Aug 2 12:11 UTC 2006 |
I'm sorry, but nowhere in M-Net's acceptable use policy does it prohibit
people from killing items they created. Further, because this is not
addressed in the AUP, and is a valid BBS command that anyone can invoke
on their own without altering their security permission or exploiting a
weakness, I believe it would be safe to say that by default M-Net allows
this.
This is clearly NOT a case of computer trespass. But I do see a clear
case of trying to soil John's reputation, which in response I would
politely say: Fuck off.
|
cross
|
|
response 2 of 39:
|
Aug 2 14:49 UTC 2006 |
What's more, the item in question wasn't actually killed, as it already had
responses from other users and YAPP doesn't permit killing at that point.
|
scholar
|
|
response 3 of 39:
|
Aug 2 15:07 UTC 2006 |
re. 1: the aup prohibits vandalism, which this was.
|
cross
|
|
response 4 of 39:
|
Aug 2 15:13 UTC 2006 |
Why? Nothing happened.
|
scholar
|
|
response 5 of 39:
|
Aug 2 15:25 UTC 2006 |
As you would know if you been paying attention, the item in question is 14,
not 15. The 15 thing means 14, but, as is discussed extensively on the
system problems item on M-Net, that's a known bug.
|
steve
|
|
response 6 of 39:
|
Aug 2 16:29 UTC 2006 |
John is in good standing on this system, and others.
I cannot say that for the author of this item.
|
cross
|
|
response 7 of 39:
|
Aug 2 16:33 UTC 2006 |
Regarding #5; So, were there any responses in item 14 when remmers killed it?
If not, then I fail to see what the big deal is.
Regarding #6; I think a policy of non-acknowledgement would be well advised
here.
|
slynne
|
|
response 8 of 39:
|
Aug 3 02:11 UTC 2006 |
I dont think that we necessarily need to to concern ourselves with items
being deleted on Mnet even if someone were to have done so
inappropriately.
However, the system allows people to kill items they author. It is
supposed to not allow it if there are already responses to the item. If
the system did allow that, then it is more of a technical problem than
anything else.
Also, I think remmers has been one of the more vocal people who has
spoken out against killing items with responses in them. So I dont think
it very likely that remmers would do such a thing on purpose.
|
remmers
|
|
response 9 of 39:
|
Aug 3 02:29 UTC 2006 |
Not only didn't I do it on purpose, I didn't do it by accident either.
I killed item 14, which I entered and had no responses. Did it right
after I posted it. The software allows an author do that if nobody else
has responded, and does *not* allow it if there are responses by other
people. Apparently there's a bug in Yapp that caused it to log that
item 15 had been killed, i.e. an "off by one" error. But if you look,
item 15 (which I also posted) is still there, with people responding
merrily away.
Much ado about nothing. I didn't delete anybody's text but my own.
Somebody needs to fix that bug in Yapp, though.
|
scholar
|
|
response 10 of 39:
|
Aug 3 03:30 UTC 2006 |
re. 6: oh please.
talk about an intellectually lame red herring ad hominem attack.
how, exactly, does anything you said in your response have anything to do with
anything?
moreover, who decides if someone's in 'good standing'? an ugly fat stroke
victim who can't control his eating, sends libelous and false abuse reports
to systems, and whose antiquated 'if we've always done it this way, we'll
always do it this way' methods of administrating a system have caused
countless hours of downtime on grex and presumably other computers?
please.
go suck your wife's dick.
|
steve
|
|
response 11 of 39:
|
Aug 3 04:48 UTC 2006 |
I think I'm going to frame response #10.
I haven't laughed that hard in quite some time.
|
scholar
|
|
response 12 of 39:
|
Aug 3 05:37 UTC 2006 |
Now why don't you do me a favour and acknowledge that the abuse report you
sent, as a representative of Cyberspace, Inc., about me to Gmail was complete
fantasy?
|
scholar
|
|
response 13 of 39:
|
Aug 3 05:39 UTC 2006 |
As was acknowledged by members of Grex's board who actually read the copious
amounts of evidence I provided to proove it was nonsense.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 14 of 39:
|
Aug 3 13:05 UTC 2006 |
Scholar, if you are still upset about that, then fine. But don't start
making shit up about remmers and accusing him of things you have no
evidence of.
|
scholar
|
|
response 15 of 39:
|
Aug 3 17:38 UTC 2006 |
I didn't make anything up.
|
tod
|
|
response 16 of 39:
|
Aug 3 18:39 UTC 2006 |
re #6
Since when did a popularity contest get in the way of a good rumor?
(Oh wait, this is Grex.)
|
naftee
|
|
response 17 of 39:
|
Aug 3 23:19 UTC 2006 |
welcome to GreX ; it's gay !
|
tod
|
|
response 18 of 39:
|
Aug 4 00:20 UTC 2006 |
youse
|
trig
|
|
response 19 of 39:
|
Aug 4 09:24 UTC 2006 |
#10 of 18: by By the way, this item has been archived offsite so you cannot
erase it. (scholar) on Wed, Aug 2, 2006 (23:30):
re. 6: oh please.
talk about an intellectually lame red herring ad hominem attack.
how, exactly, does anything you said in your response have anything to do
with
anything?
moreover, who decides if someone's in 'good standing'? an ugly fat stroke
victim who can't control his eating, sends libelous and false abuse reports
to systems, and whose antiquated 'if we've always done it this way, we'll
always do it this way' methods of administrating a system have caused
countless hours of downtime on grex and presumably other computers?
please.
go suck your wife's dick.
------------
hahhah, that's the best thing i have read all day and it is all true.
way to go scholar.
as for n8 he's a douche bag that contantly looks, no begs for attention; no
one is concerned about him or takes him serious.
|
scholar
|
|
response 20 of 39:
|
Aug 4 17:30 UTC 2006 |
I formally retract any statement of fact or inuendo I made about Mr. Remmers
or his darling wife in this item.
The shit about steve' stays, though.
|
steve
|
|
response 21 of 39:
|
Aug 4 17:35 UTC 2006 |
I am so relieved.
|
cross
|
|
response 22 of 39:
|
Aug 4 21:14 UTC 2006 |
Now now, Children, play nice. Steve, it would really behoove you not to let
your animosity towards polytarp show so much. Just ignore him.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 23 of 39:
|
Aug 4 21:49 UTC 2006 |
Do you mind if I use that line the next time you're picking at
STeve and let it get a bit too personal?
|
cross
|
|
response 24 of 39:
|
Aug 4 22:46 UTC 2006 |
Sure. We can all use such reminders from time to time.
|