|
Grex > Coop13 > #43: Account of Board Candidate Terminated | |
|
| Author |
Message |
jp2test
|
|
Account of Board Candidate Terminated
| 
Dec 3 04:37 UTC 2003 |
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. |
willcome
|
|
response 1 of 130:
|
Dec 3 04:51 UTC 2003 |
QUICK< CENSOR THIS SHIT
|
willcome
|
|
response 2 of 130:
|
Dec 3 04:59 UTC 2003 |
(By the way, this is bloody exciting.)
|
willcome
|
|
response 3 of 130:
|
Dec 3 05:05 UTC 2003 |
As a member of Grex's staff and Board, I demand an explanation.
|
other
|
|
response 4 of 130:
|
Dec 3 05:08 UTC 2003 |
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 :)
|
willcome
|
|
response 5 of 130:
|
Dec 3 05:17 UTC 2003 |
AHAHAHA!!
THIS IS GREAT
|
jp2test
|
|
response 6 of 130:
|
Dec 3 05:21 UTC 2003 |
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?
|
willcome
|
|
response 7 of 130:
|
Dec 3 05:41 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
carson
|
|
response 8 of 130:
|
Dec 3 12:34 UTC 2003 |
(what e-mail?)
|
jp2test
|
|
response 9 of 130:
|
Dec 3 13:12 UTC 2003 |
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?
|
gull
|
|
response 10 of 130:
|
Dec 3 14:37 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
gull
|
|
response 11 of 130:
|
Dec 3 14:37 UTC 2003 |
(Incidentally, when you said you'd sent out 900 email messages my first
thought *was*, "geez, that sounds like spamming.")
|
gelinas
|
|
response 12 of 130:
|
Dec 3 14:47 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
scott
|
|
response 13 of 130:
|
Dec 3 14:57 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
jp2test
|
|
response 14 of 130:
|
Dec 3 14:58 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
gull
|
|
response 15 of 130:
|
Dec 3 15:14 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
scott
|
|
response 16 of 130:
|
Dec 3 15:16 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
scott
|
|
response 17 of 130:
|
Dec 3 15:16 UTC 2003 |
(gull slipped in - I was responding to Jamie's #14)
|
jep
|
|
response 18 of 130:
|
Dec 3 15:19 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
jp2test
|
|
response 19 of 130:
|
Dec 3 15:20 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
jp2test
|
|
response 20 of 130:
|
Dec 3 15:22 UTC 2003 |
Slippage, I was responding to 15.
|
jp2test
|
|
response 21 of 130:
|
Dec 3 15:23 UTC 2003 |
16: Have you even seen the message that was sent?
|
scott
|
|
response 22 of 130:
|
Dec 3 15:43 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
scott
|
|
response 23 of 130:
|
Dec 3 15:48 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
jep
|
|
response 24 of 130:
|
Dec 3 16:12 UTC 2003 |
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.
|