|
Grex > Coop7 > #35: How should staff respond to complaints about a particular user? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 171 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 125 of 171:
| 
Jul 4 21:11 UTC 1995 |
My apologies to mju and scg, misattributing a brilliant idea.
|
tsty
|
|
response 126 of 171:
|
Jul 5 17:32 UTC 1995 |
in this case, the mommy mail alias is the answer. C-login (who seems
not only confused, but left out) can mail mommy for a few warm
and fuzzies.
|
nephi
|
|
response 127 of 171:
|
Jul 14 14:26 UTC 1995 |
I, for one, think that staff *should* warn other users about problem users.
Maybe in the MOTD, perhaps? I know that if I ever saw *my* name in the MOTD
like that, I would be so embarrassed that I would immediately cease my
actions, mail staff, and possibly, leave (or start using a pseudo, which I
would probably be a little more careful with).
|
chelsea
|
|
response 128 of 171:
|
Jul 14 23:33 UTC 1995 |
Oh, my. We seem to be moving so far from where we started
that sometimes I don't know where I am.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 129 of 171:
|
Jul 14 23:34 UTC 1995 |
(maybe nephi was just joshin')
|
carson
|
|
response 130 of 171:
|
Jul 14 23:41 UTC 1995 |
out of curiousity, nephi, what makes a problem user? I imagine that I
qualify as "problem user" for some people. I can be a jerk. I can also
be a really nice, sensitive, intelligent, and entertaining individual.
Would I be a "problem user" simply because I choose to not be perfectly
ignorant and contented all the time? It's usually when I'm displeased that
I resort to rude, inflammatory behavior and language. How about if I do
something that I feel is perfectly harmless, yet is actually something
*REALLY BAD*, like exploiting a security hole? I did that in my first
year! I'm sure that I've committed enough "crimes" since to be considered
a "problem user." I toss flames. I make personal attacks. I'm not always
on my best behavior. Imagine if I had the Unix knowledge of an avi, or,
even moreso, a gregc. Imagine the sort of jerk I could be *then*.
Tell me, nephi, am I a "problem user"?
I wouldn't want you to make that choice for everyone else anymore than I
would want anyone else on staff to. I wouldn't want *anyone* to get so
high on themselves that they feel that they can make decisions like that.
Frankly, nephi, this current kick you have where you feel it's OK to
publicly ridicule others makes me sick. Haven't you learned ANYTHING from
my repeated, public mistakes?
|
carson
|
|
response 131 of 171:
|
Jul 14 23:42 UTC 1995 |
128 and #129 slipped in. as if it mattered.
|
nephi
|
|
response 132 of 171:
|
Jul 16 08:40 UTC 1995 |
Well, I guess I should go in order . . . Mary said:
> Oh, my. We seem to be moving so far from where we started
> that sometimes I don't know where I am.
Hmm . . . I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this . . . are you against
disseminating information to the people who need it most?
I don't remember seeing you in party too often (Have I ever seen you
there?), but very often malicious users tell unsuspecting novices to run
scripts, or run the "yes" command, or type !stty 0, or !chmod .login 777,
or (I think you get the idea . . . ). And party is the perfect
environment for these "people", too, as it gives them a never ending
supply of innocent newbies to hurt. Think about it. No one can stay in
party 24 hours a day to warn people not to type these commands, and any
warnings given disappear in seconds.
So, how do we stop these miscreants from hurting innocent people?
|
chelsea
|
|
response 133 of 171:
|
Jul 16 11:27 UTC 1995 |
There is a learning curve to using any conferencing system. I guess
I just don't worry so much about eliminating all the mis-steps that
folks might take. I did a few stupid things when I first logged in
in 1986. I learned some from working through what happened. I
never figured it was staff's job to protect me or to keep me safe.
Probably because they never tried to do so. My experience was my own.
Now, if some folks want to go the extra and nurture every newuser
though all the people problems... Well, I guess they are welcome
to become super-moms. But please, don't make it a mandatory
experience for everyone to endure. And please, don't let such
hand-holding be used to justify such things as censor committees,
tribunals to decide whose name should go in the bad-pern MOTD
list, and so on. Yucko.
|
tsty
|
|
response 134 of 171:
|
Jul 16 13:52 UTC 1995 |
what chelsea just said ....
|
sidhe
|
|
response 135 of 171:
|
Jul 29 18:36 UTC 1995 |
Would "super-momism", if not led by staff be (potentially) vigil-
anteism?
|
tsty
|
|
response 136 of 171:
|
Aug 2 13:10 UTC 1995 |
so far, led by staff, it has a closer appearance to vigilanteism,imo.
|
tsty
|
|
response 137 of 171:
|
Aug 23 16:53 UTC 1995 |
Simply the implementation of a NON-staffer being the SuperMom establishes
a wider-than-staff-circle demonstration of the "care and feeding" of
the users. We are all in this together, and being a NON-staffer-SuperMom
reinforces that widening base of "all of us."
|
davel
|
|
response 138 of 171:
|
Aug 23 20:37 UTC 1995 |
Given the amorphous use of the word "staff" here, I question this - that is,
if we appoint someone for something like that, people are going to refer
to that person as a staffer.
|
tsty
|
|
response 139 of 171:
|
Aug 28 03:22 UTC 1995 |
people already confuse board and staff, add to the fun -
.... and perhaps have a "staff/board" command which identifies
each loginid and function...
|
carson
|
|
response 140 of 171:
|
Aug 28 04:51 UTC 1995 |
there's an idea.
|
tsty
|
|
response 141 of 171:
|
Aug 29 18:17 UTC 1995 |
yeh-but it's from me.....
|
nephi
|
|
response 142 of 171:
|
Aug 30 04:24 UTC 1995 |
I like it, too. And it would be easy to implement, but I wouldn't be the one
to put everyone's jobs down. (Heck, what *are* everyone's jobs?)
|
popcorn
|
|
response 143 of 171:
|
Aug 30 12:27 UTC 1995 |
We used to have a "board" command that listed the people on the board.
A "staff" command would be no bad idea, too. Though it's hard to say
what anybody's job is, since all of us pitch in where we're able.
|
davel
|
|
response 144 of 171:
|
Aug 30 17:48 UTC 1995 |
Yes, it would need some thought - but it would be really useful, too.
|
steve
|
|
response 145 of 171:
|
Aug 31 17:53 UTC 1995 |
We can and probably should come up with a list of people's
jobs, but I sure don't want to make it start to feel like thats
what he or she is "supposed" to be doing.
Part of the reason Grex has run as well as it has over the
past year with its incredible growth, is that staff hasn't
had the thought "oh, I can't do that, its not my job", as I've
seen on other systems.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 146 of 171:
|
Sep 1 11:55 UTC 1995 |
I've re-created the "board" and "staff" commands. The staff one
lists a bunch of stuff I thought of off the top of my head; there's
a lot of info in it that is wildly inaccurate or just plain missing.
But it's a start. If you're a staffer, please feel free to update it.
|
davel
|
|
response 147 of 171:
|
Sep 1 13:05 UTC 1995 |
Sounds like you're calling Marcus a new user.
8-{)}
|
popcorn
|
|
response 148 of 171:
|
Sep 1 14:12 UTC 1995 |
Ok, I changed the wording a bit.
|
remmers
|
|
response 149 of 171:
|
Sep 1 16:06 UTC 1995 |
Sounds like popcorn and remmers have special responsibilities
for backups. Maybe "shadow cfadm"? :)
|