|
Grex > Coop6 > #26: Policy for non-members to post to Usenet | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 9 new of 133 responses total. |
carson
|
|
response 125 of 133:
| 
Mar 3 03:00 UTC 1995 |
re #122: I'd have absolutely *no problem* saying something like that.
I don't think I should be doing the verifying, either.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 126 of 133:
|
Mar 9 18:58 UTC 1995 |
Well, with the "kick 'em if they screw up" concept, why verify?
If the person is an idiot, kick their access. If they make a pseudo, and
behave, well, if they are behaving, who cares? It would certainly decrease
the amount of work you guys would have to do, in terms of verification, trying
to figure out if the ID is fake, etc. If someone is willing to tell somone
"Sorry, no access without valid ID", why not "Sorry, no access, because you've
been making a nuisance of yourself"?
As I said above, if they go ahead and make a psuedo, and behave them-
selves, then mission accomplished! The idiot is no longer being idiotic, and
the Net now has a new viable member. You guys are so lassez-faire about
virtually every other aspect of this net, why not that?
|
tsty
|
|
response 127 of 133:
|
Mar 10 07:40 UTC 1995 |
Grex just returned the "donation" of a pern who desired to
remain anonymous, even though the return ofthe "donation" had to
be made .... somehow.
Looks like "kick em if they screw up" is not operational. At least
the pern was honest about anonymity. And just think .... someone
else's "ID" would have gained access for a loginid.
There is care to be taken, no doubt, about just whom is accredited
as "valid." But even with validity, a "screwup" (who decides) will
knock off a loginid, whether "verified valid" or not.
|
wind
|
|
response 128 of 133:
|
Mar 10 10:11 UTC 1995 |
I think I'd agree whole heartedly if the above were in clear,
standard English.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 129 of 133:
|
Mar 10 13:26 UTC 1995 |
Re 126: The problem with giving every pseudo access to the net, is that
if Joe Sixpack screws up and has his access revoked, he can come right
back with the name Jane Doe and get access all over again. It's not a
very effective system for keeping access revoked for the people who abuse
the system.
Re 127: Could you re-state that in different words? I wasn't sure what
you were saying. Thanks!
|
tsty
|
|
response 130 of 133:
|
Mar 12 10:56 UTC 1995 |
ok, re #128/9, as soon as I get to my other machine.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 131 of 133:
|
Mar 13 15:42 UTC 1995 |
Then you revoke it again, to the "new" fool. Eventually, they'll get
the idea that they won't be allowed o use grex if they keep screwing around.
And, the ones who would be good little cybernauts would have an additional
benefit of allowed anonymity.. Hey, It's a concept worth looking into.
|
danr
|
|
response 132 of 133:
|
Mar 13 17:15 UTC 1995 |
If only that were true. The abusers are nothing if not persistent.
|
ajax
|
|
response 133 of 133:
|
Mar 13 17:26 UTC 1995 |
Re 126/131, users who want to do bad things on the net could create new
accounts in five minutes, and be able to use the account for several days
of annoyance before it would be revoked. (Usenet takes several hours to
propegate, sysadmins or users from other systems would need to write to
Grex's staff, Grex's staff would need to investigate and discuss, etc.).
It just doesn't sound like it would add any kind of deterrent effect, and
once word of the policy got around, Grex would be the international haven
for nettwits.
|