|
Grex > Coop6 > #45: Harrassment in "write" sessions | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 115 responses total. |
steve
|
|
response 50 of 115:
| 
Jan 20 23:33 UTC 1995 |
I was the reciepiant of a sexually suggestive write session last
night. At first, little 'ol me didn't quite understand what was going
on. Then I figured it out, and said that it was pretty boring talking
like that to someone you don't know. The person didn't respond for the
longest time, and I eventually broke the connection. Perhaps 15 minutes
later this person wrote me again, and asked if I was mad at it. I said
yes, and that it was uncalled for to launch into such discussions
first, before asking if the other party wants to or not. I also made
it clear to it that if I got complaints about this login, that I would
contact the appropriate people at the college it comes in from. I
asked it if it understood what I was saying and it responded in the
affirmitive.
So, if anyone knows of someone who has harrased in this way
lately, staff should know about it, either here, or possibly better,
in mail.
|
robh
|
|
response 51 of 115:
|
Jan 21 00:59 UTC 1995 |
Not lately, but a few months ago, yes. I'm already
discussing the matter with a staff member via e-mail. >8)
|
andyv
|
|
response 52 of 115:
|
Jan 21 23:16 UTC 1995 |
Heard a clip on NPR about sex this week and I think one explanation was
that porno and porno phone lines are a method of safe sex for some folks.
Sounds a little messed up to me but things are changing for methods of
sexual interaction.
|
steve
|
|
response 53 of 115:
|
Jan 22 05:30 UTC 1995 |
There is something called "emotional isolation", which I'm not
professionally qualififed to talk about, but it goes like this: some
people feel the need to communicate, yet they want a "safe" way for it
to happen such that they don't feel pain. I first noticed this in
amateur radio circles, the way some folks used their radios. As I got
involved with computer conferencing, I saw it there, too. Only people
are even more isolated in this medium, since all normal human contact
is removed.
So, porno and sex phone services seem a logical extension of that.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 54 of 115:
|
Jan 23 21:30 UTC 1995 |
How nice for them... I guess.
|
steve
|
|
response 55 of 115:
|
Jan 26 01:34 UTC 1995 |
We have been in contact with the system administrators of wsc.edu,
where our latest problem writer came from.
I'm glad to say they were quick to help out. They have found the
person responsible and for the time being, his computer access. I
sent mail back to them, and suggested that perhaps we can talk to this
person, such that we can educate him (her? although I doubt it) about
what they did that was wrong. We'll see what their response is.
So if you've received writes of a harrassing nature lately, I think
this perticular problem is solved.
If there is any more on this I'll let people know.
|
katie
|
|
response 56 of 115:
|
Jan 26 18:19 UTC 1995 |
That seems somewhat drastic, if this was the usual stuff people do on
occasion.
|
steve
|
|
response 57 of 115:
|
Jan 26 18:24 UTC 1995 |
Really? After we'd talked to him? He tried that on me, and I told
him to stop. I explained that Grex wasn't appreciative of that sort of
thing, and that if he didn't stop, we'd take further action.
Two days later, he tried it on me, again! By thing time he'd bothered
at least 7 other people.
What would you suggest, Katie? If that is drastic, what better measures
are there? Why should we put up with that kind of behavior?
|
sidhe
|
|
response 58 of 115:
|
Jan 26 19:50 UTC 1995 |
We shouldn't.
Period.
Now, as for my aversion to tel, and MESG.. The sad fact is, on
M-Net, what jep isn't telling you is that tel makes it Very Easy for
idiots to whip onto M-Net, Lash out a few HIGHLY derogatory remarks and
log off, with there being positively no "sporting chance" to quickly respond.
You see, tel takes the entire message you are sending, lets you
type it in, and then, when you are all done, you hit return, and it gets
sent. With using !chat with a quick ^D at the end, your line to the other
party opens long before you are done typing the message, allowing the
party to have a chance to say something back.
And, if the author of this item thought there were problems with
!write or !chat sessions getting ugly, let me assure you, that !tel makes
it much worse.
|
katie
|
|
response 59 of 115:
|
Jan 27 19:49 UTC 1995 |
As I said, it seems drastic if it was the usual one-shot stuff. There were
no details posted in the original post about it.
|
ajax
|
|
response 60 of 115:
|
Jan 27 21:57 UTC 1995 |
Yep, obviously STeve's dealt with this a lot more in private...from just
this item, it looked like he went from one harassment to revoked internet
access, until the follow-up message. That would have been drastic!! :-)
|
jep
|
|
response 61 of 115:
|
Jan 28 15:23 UTC 1995 |
What sidhe describes in #58 is also possible with the "write"
program.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 62 of 115:
|
Jan 29 03:51 UTC 1995 |
Yes, John, as I said IN that response, a similar effect can be
achieved by using !write/!chat, but I also noted the differences in
the simulated effect and in !tel's actual functions. So, seeing as all that
had been said, why bring it up? Redundancy does not become any of us.
As I also said there, the original reason this item was entered
was due to obscene/harrassing !write sessions. I daresay that giving these
idiots an easier tool to make "sniper runs" with is foolish, and that is
precisely what !tel does for them. And, as John pointed out, ligitimate
users can always use !write to send a quick message, if needed, making
!tel totally unneccessary.
|
scg
|
|
response 63 of 115:
|
Jan 29 04:22 UTC 1995 |
If people are making a "sniper run" at me, I would much prefer it to come
from tel. If somebody's going to write or chat me in order to harrass me,
befoore I have found out what is going on I will probably already have
dropped whatever else I was doing to go talk to them, assuming they are a
confused newbie in need of help. OTOH, if they used something like tel, I
would know the moment they started talking to me that I didn't want to
talk to them.
|
carson
|
|
response 64 of 115:
|
Jan 29 11:17 UTC 1995 |
I dunno. "set nochat", "set nowrite", and "!mesg n" do the trick for
me. then again, who would *want* to talk to me? ;)
|
popcorn
|
|
response 65 of 115:
|
Jan 29 13:21 UTC 1995 |
("mesg n" alone works for me) :)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 66 of 115:
|
Jan 29 21:41 UTC 1995 |
Let's have a few words in *favor* of being available to newbies for
their questions. I always have mesg y and mesg -h y in conf, except
when I'm logging in and out in a hurry for some reason. Actually, I
appeal to everyone to leave mesg y, since the more people there are on
able to accept messages, the fewer unwanted message each will receive,
simply by dilution. Help yourself by helping your neighbors!
|
sidhe
|
|
response 67 of 115:
|
Jan 30 03:43 UTC 1995 |
I agree entirely with rcurl- turning messages off isn't always a
good thing. I'd much rather not give the pranksters an easier, more convenient
weapon than shut down *my* mesg reciever. SCG, I really don't follow your
logic, but I respect it as your perspective. My view is, !chat or !tel, if
someone contacts me, I either will or won't respond, depending on what's
said, totally independant of the program used. I simply don't see the
advantage you seem to.
Anyway, we are drifting from the point, which is, !write OR !tel,
we still are left with these pranksters- what are we to do about THEM?
|
scg
|
|
response 68 of 115:
|
Jan 30 04:07 UTC 1995 |
With chat, I generally have to respond before the person will start
talking (or at least, if they start talking before I've responded I will
get rather upset). With tel, I would know what they were talking about
before responding, and affter the first telegram, it would probably be over.
Would it work to enable tel, but have a seperate set of permissions for it
so that people could allow write and chat sessions but not tel, if they
wanted to?
|
jep
|
|
response 69 of 115:
|
Jan 30 05:02 UTC 1995 |
I favor "tel" solely because it allows someone to send me a quick
message without my having to watch them type it (as in "chat") or worse,
wait, wondering if they are typing at all ("as in "write").
|
ajax
|
|
response 70 of 115:
|
Jan 30 05:24 UTC 1995 |
Re #68, it's possible, just potentially hard :). I was thinking it would be
neat to extend control over write permissions so that people can specify who
they'd like to accept calls from, rather than all or none (maybe keep a file
in your home directory of logins to either accept or reject). Another neat
feature might be to allow a user-settable message to be broadcast to write
initiators, giving them a chance to reconsider continuing. This would allow
you to say, for example, "I'll be happy to answer technical questions, but
am not interested in just personal chats," or "I am a cybersex fiend, and
hate newbie questions," or "It often takes me a while to respond."
Though I looked at write's source, and what sounds simple in theory isn't
necessarily so :). (It's much bigger than I'd expected!)
|
sidhe
|
|
response 71 of 115:
|
Jan 31 14:32 UTC 1995 |
re: 68 and 69, It still leaves us with the same problem, whether or not
we have or don't have tel.
I still say it only makes it easier on the pranksters, to have tel
available. Frankly, John, the reason I don't ever enjoy setting foot in
your net is because of the idiots there that have nothing better to do
than sit there and tel nasty messages at me and others.
re: 70, thank you! Finally we get back to trying to solve the core problem..
even if the suggestion may not be feasible, at least we are trying to
work in the right direction!
|
scg
|
|
response 72 of 115:
|
Feb 1 04:12 UTC 1995 |
(sidhe -- try "mesg n")
|
sidhe
|
|
response 73 of 115:
|
Feb 1 21:53 UTC 1995 |
scg- no, I will not! I want to be open to my friends here, and
I won't go incommunicado just because some twits want to ruin it for
the rest of us!
|
jep
|
|
response 74 of 115:
|
Feb 2 04:13 UTC 1995 |
re #71, if there's a problem on M-Net with people sending nasty
messages to one another, I don't think the problem can be blamed on "tel".
The resources to send nasty messages exists on any relatively open Unix
system, via e-mail, write, talk, etc. Any communications method can be
used to send nastiness.
|