|
Grex > Coop7 > #35: How should staff respond to complaints about a particular user? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 171 responses total. |
ajax
|
|
response 100 of 171:
| 
Jun 4 13:10 UTC 1995 |
It seems unlikely that a newbie would accidentally create a
.rhost file with other people's names in it...they'd be more
likely to accidentally put their password in their .plan or
something. Running some hacker's script that creates a .rhost
is more likely, but that same script could remove the .login
check suggested in #92. Anyway, it sounds like rlogin *could*
be a problem, but unless it really is one (i.e. several accounts
are compromised this way), it's not worth changing.
|
tsty
|
|
response 101 of 171:
|
Jun 11 03:23 UTC 1995 |
this isn't intended at all to be callous or hard-hearted or anything
like that ... however, if you give away your password, you give away
all and every right to whomever that person is. there are a couple,
but damn few, perns to whom i would entrust my password and that
has more to do with me then it does to do with them.
and also, there aren't too many perns whose password i would *accept*
for my use except for some sort of emergency situation. i am willing
to take that risk (another's passwd) on a situation by situation
basis for expicit and short-termed necessities.
i don't remember just +how+ much emphasis there is in newuser about
the sanctity of a password ... but there probaby is some info.
And then, consider that some people need to get burned a couple
times before they quit putting their fingers in the fire. There is
no way you or i or anyone else can prevent, totally, stupid actions.
so, when a passwd is given away ... there isn't much room for
complaint if something goes worgn. "sorry about that, don't do it again."
|
srw
|
|
response 102 of 171:
|
Jun 11 08:05 UTC 1995 |
I was not under the impression that blob gave his password away freely.
I was under the impression that he was tricked into running a script
that created an access to his account.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 103 of 171:
|
Jun 11 11:35 UTC 1995 |
Exactly that.
|
srw
|
|
response 104 of 171:
|
Jun 12 06:34 UTC 1995 |
Then TS might want to consider backing away from his blanket assessment
that because blob gave away his password all bets are off.
Under these circumstances I don't buy it one bit.
Even given what blob is alleged to have done, there is a right way and a
wrong way to deal with it. Avi chose the wrong way. Ryan helped him.
Even if blob had shared his password voluntarily, using it to harm him
is not acceptable behavior here.
|
tsty
|
|
response 105 of 171:
|
Jun 13 03:06 UTC 1995 |
"tricked into running a script" is rather a "late arriving" "impression."
|
mdw
|
|
response 106 of 171:
|
Jun 13 09:48 UTC 1995 |
Newuser has always had "scary" text warning against sharing passwords.
The original text warned against sharing it with the "person watching
over your shoulder". That text seems to be gone, but you can see the
current text with:
!sed -n 400,421p /usr/noton/nu/nu.info
Just to put another twist into the story; the script that "blob" was
apparently tricked into using, actually purported to be a script to
harass other users on the system. Ie, it would appear that "blob"'s
intentions were not necessarily less malicious than anyone else
involved.
Something else people seem to have lost track of, is the age of the
persons involved. A century ago, presumably these people would have
been dipping girl's pigtails into the ink well. There's a civilizing
process going on here - applying "an eye for an eye" reasoning is not
necessarily the best way to encourage people to get along with each
other.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 107 of 171:
|
Jun 13 15:12 UTC 1995 |
Hm. I was under the impression that ryan ran a command that messed up
people's screens, and then he told people to run a particular script out
of his directory to make their screen go back to normal again. It did
that, but it also left behind a hole he could use to get into their
accounts.
|
ajax
|
|
response 108 of 171:
|
Jun 14 15:11 UTC 1995 |
Wow, gotta admit, that's a good idea for getting people to run your script! :)
|
tsty
|
|
response 109 of 171:
|
Jun 15 09:59 UTC 1995 |
I am particularily glad to read #106, and also fully agree with the
"not an eye for an eye, necessarily" concept. That concept could go
a long way in dealing with "situations," and could be absorbed by
more people, thankxx mdw.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 110 of 171:
|
Jun 21 11:53 UTC 1995 |
Would "not an eye for an eye" involve a less hasty reaction to avi/ryan1's
situation, and involve a bentler. better-thought-out one? If so, that
sounds fine from this perspective.
|
tsty
|
|
response 111 of 171:
|
Jun 21 16:34 UTC 1995 |
good perspective; any other takers?
|
carson
|
|
response 112 of 171:
|
Jun 21 20:13 UTC 1995 |
TS, sidhe, would you be pleased if staff documented every fricking
complaint they recieved about ryan1 *and* avi prior to this most
recent action? I personally am *hardly* under the impression that the
action taken this time around was "hasty," and I think the action
that was taken was *much* better than what I would have done, which
*would* have essentially been "an eye-for-eye."
So, no, TS, I'm not a taker.
|
tsty
|
|
response 113 of 171:
|
Jun 22 13:43 UTC 1995 |
thank you. next?
btw, staff mail +does+ document "every fricking complaint ..." and not
only among/between the instant logins.
|
carson
|
|
response 114 of 171:
|
Jun 22 15:55 UTC 1995 |
TS, can you answer my first question?
|
tsty
|
|
response 115 of 171:
|
Jun 23 03:54 UTC 1995 |
unless i can't count ... you first questio was "...pleased if staff
documented every..." which i +thought+ i answered - what am i missing
here/there?
i havent' been on the staff mailing list for quite a while so my answer
was based on prior experience, which may not be true now ... dunno.
|
srw
|
|
response 116 of 171:
|
Jun 23 06:07 UTC 1995 |
Carson asked if you would be pleased if staff documented every complaint.
You didn't answer whether you would be pleased or not, rather you
said that staff does this. Well, I am sure Carson meant document
in public, and I am quite sure that staff does not document every complaint
in public. So with that understanding, Carson's question remains
unanswered.
|
davel
|
|
response 117 of 171:
|
Jun 23 13:12 UTC 1995 |
I don't think staff documents every little complaint *anywhere*. I'm
fairly sure that some come in write or talk sessions which are recorded
nowhere at all. But complaints mailed to staff get read & probably saved
by several people.
|
carson
|
|
response 118 of 171:
|
Jun 23 15:22 UTC 1995 |
TS answered\ my question the way I'd stated it, and srw stated my
question the way I'd intended it.
|
mju
|
|
response 119 of 171:
|
Jun 23 15:34 UTC 1995 |
I save all semi-important (i.e., not generated by a daemon, not
empty) mail that I receive indefinitely. This includes Grex staff
mail.
|
tsty
|
|
response 120 of 171:
|
Jun 30 19:17 UTC 1995 |
oh, ok ...thankxx for the translation srw adn thje acknowledgement carson.
perhaps the concept of "maintain" rather then "document" is a better
working word (as mju does). "In public" is not a wise policy, imo, except
for the rare case of impending doom. If the issue were to be raised by
an affected login, a public staff response is warranted. As a great many
of grexers are aware i, myself, follow taht policy almost to self-damaging
extremes at times (ref: itd).
As far as "pleased" goes, again, a better working word is needed but i
don't have it at my fingertips at this moment. Maybe someone else does.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 121 of 171:
|
Jul 3 13:20 UTC 1995 |
New question: Staff has received two complaints this week that user
A is impersonating user B, and user B is not happy. In particular, user B
says that user A keeps going into party and saying, "Hi everybody! I'm B!"
After the first complaint, I sent e-mail to B suggesting that he have a
talk with A and explain why A's behavior bothered him, and ask him to stop.
I don't know if he did that, but he sent mail again today saying that A
is still doing it. I'm a bit stumped about what to do now. Send e-mail
to A myself, asking him to cease and desist? I'd rather not get involved,
but clearly B wants some kind of help.
Help?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 122 of 171:
|
Jul 3 19:00 UTC 1995 |
Yes, send e-mail to A. This is (trivial) harrassment. I can understand why
you don't want to get involved - that was the reason for creating a group
to handle exactly this sort of thing - what scg suggested calling Mommy or
Daddy. You do realize, of course, that this is the kind of refusal of a
harrasser to take *no* for an answer, which escalates into more serous
violence.
|
tsty
|
|
response 123 of 171:
|
Jul 4 05:49 UTC 1995 |
is this a login-switch of some sort? Or is it that the A-login, logged
in +as+ A, is trying to state that it's really B-login at the keyboard
using the A-login?
if it's the latter,
...... srw could "pose" as popcorn !!!!!! <yeh, right, and get
away with it too, huh?>
|
popcorn
|
|
response 124 of 171:
|
Jul 4 13:16 UTC 1995 |
(Re 122: Er... that was mju, not scg, who proposed having a "mommy"
mail alias.)
Re 123: This isn't a login switch. This is the A login, logged in
*as* A, claiming that it's B at the keyboard. But it isn't.
|