response 33 of 130:

Dec 3 18:49 UTC 2003

HAMMERED>!@# WHOA, _ST_EVE REALLY GOT TO JP2 THIS TIME AJAHA

response 35 of 130:

Dec 3 19:38 UTC 2003

Re #30:  Nope, Jamie's still a candidate.

I've configured the vote program to look for his campaign
statement in his jp2test account.  The vote program now
displays it.  Not having access to his member account
doesn't impede his campaign at this point.

response 37 of 130:

Dec 3 19:56 UTC 2003

From what I'd seen, it looked like other was explaining the actions of 
steve, and scott (as another staffer) was defending those actions.  I 
didn't know anyone else was involved at all.  Fortunately I didn't 
refer to any particular staffer in my previous comments.

It shouldn't matter who locked the account, or if even the whole staff 
concurs.  I think this should be a Board issue, not a staff issue.  I 
think the election is a more important event for Grex than an 
occurrance of someone sending a lot of e-mails.

I think jp2's intentions do matter.  Look at what he's been saying, in 
this item and others.  He's trying to get new members to sign up.  He 
may be going about it badly, or wrongly, but in this case I think his 
intentions seem good.  I'd view it much differently if I thought he was 
running for the Board in order to hide behind candidate status.

Jamie has been a thorn in my side, too.  He's been quite malicious 
toward Arbornet/M-Net for several months.  I'm not defending a buddy 
here on the basis of him being a great guy.

I think locking his account seems out of line, under the circumstances 
as described in this item, and considering the election in progress.  
It should be unlocked and returned to him.

response 39 of 130:

Dec 3 20:06 UTC 2003

37:  I object to "badly."  Don't forget, I once got 2000 new users in one day
for M-Net and about half a dozen of them became members.

response 41 of 130:

Dec 3 20:36 UTC 2003

I, for one, am satisfied that the staff is handling the situation
appropriately.

I don't think it's entirely a bad idea to survey nonmembers.  If Jamie had
proposed the idea in coop, and tried to build a consensus, and hopefully
ironed out the technical details of what to say and how often to send the
messages, it might have worked out well.  It might still work out well, if
he or someone else does that in the future.

BUT, he went about it in such a way that he was bound to piss people off. 
I suspect he knew that from the outset, and planned to use the resulting
flap to feed his persecution complex.  But whether or not he did doesn't
really matter.  The simple fact is that even if you do something with good
intentions, that doesn't mean it's a responsible thing to do.

I hope Jamie will propose the idea of a survey of nonmembers here in coop,
so we can discuss a way to do it that will be acceptable to everyone.

response 43 of 130:

Dec 3 21:36 UTC 2003

Re resp:22: Yes, that was one incident.

Are you saying that if another long-term Grexer who had less of a combative
reputation had done the same thing jp2 did, that their account would be
locked instead of a warning being given?  I know personally that I've done
stuff before that I shouldn't have, like receiving big email attachments or
taking up too much disk space, and I was always warned.  My account has
never been locked.


Re resp:27: Maybe blanket immunity is too strong a word.  But I think
politically it would have looked much better not to do it this way.  Jp2's
campaign probably would have failed anyway, but now he can blame Grex staff
for its failure.


Re resp:32: From newuser's introductory info:

   - Do not create mailing lists.

   - Do not send or receive more than 100 K of mail in a day.  Less is
better!

This should be a big, big hint that mass emailing isn't allowed, don't you
think?

response 45 of 130:

Dec 3 21:45 UTC 2003

re: 34:  408+ messages may have been sent as a result of your spam, 
but only a minute fraction of them have been handled by Grex.  List 
messages are exploded offsite.

response 47 of 130:

Dec 3 22:07 UTC 2003

Hmm.  Staff is exploded offsite, so I thought baff would be as well.  
We should correct that, for just such instances as this.

response 49 of 130:

Dec 3 22:32 UTC 2003

Re #42: Yes, absolutely, if anyone else had sent spam of the magnitude that
Jamie did, their account would have been locked.  His reputation was not a
factor in the staff's action.

response 51 of 130:

Dec 4 00:01 UTC 2003

Re 49> You may like to think so, but I doubt that would have happened. Let's
say it was mary's account that sent the spam. I'm pretty sure staff would have
just sent a warning. It's easy to deny that you would now, but you know that's
what woul have happened.

response 53 of 130:

Dec 4 00:36 UTC 2003

Frankly, I didn't think Old Grex was this clever.  First, a random Board
Member invited, in language vague enough to later deny it, jp2 to send E-mails
to new users imploring them to become members.  Then, Staff confused the issue
by having each member doing something entirely different. Gelinas wouldn't
say what happened, while other posted and bragged about it all over BBS; one
staff member ignored it, while another received calls from his wife about it;
other gave jp2 a warning, while others supported punishment.  These
manourveres were so successful that we still have no idea, other than a rumour
that it was a staff member who won't defend her actions, who actually splatted
jp2's account.  Now, Staff's pretending jp2, someone who's donated time and
money to Grex, broke a rule by following the directions of a Board Member!

I'm glad you see through it too, tod.

response 55 of 130:

Dec 4 00:39 UTC 2003

Aruba, why do you, personally, support the hijacking of the election?