|
Grex > Coop7 > #35: How should staff respond to complaints about a particular user? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 171 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 50 of 171:
| 
Apr 29 05:24 UTC 1995 |
There was a loop here that suggested that perhaps staff, who are
concerned with all technical aspects of system operation, including
related to breakins and other vandalism (forking scripts, etc), might
appreciate being relieved of also dealing with complaints of one
user against another, which have no technical content. The role was
called "ombudsperson" at one point (or should have been ;->). I have
observed many quite mature and rational people on line here that
could help in this area, even though they cannot chmod a perm. Why not
use them?
|
steve
|
|
response 51 of 171:
|
Apr 29 17:29 UTC 1995 |
It might be a very reasonable thing to make some more staff
people here. It would be really good actually. But I'd like
to see staff types who could help out on a variety of issues
and not 'just' manners of users. That avoids the idea of a
'council'. I think this is a subtle but important difference.
Do others see what I'm saying? Do you agree or disagree?
|
adbarr
|
|
response 52 of 171:
|
Apr 29 23:59 UTC 1995 |
<stop it {{{!> 50 and 51 ye. Do it. {{{stop these things!{{
|
sidhe
|
|
response 53 of 171:
|
Apr 30 00:57 UTC 1995 |
I don't believe what I'm reading.
Grex- founded on the idea of as few rules as possible? Indeed.
It gets hard to believe when, every time I recommend nixxing a nonsensical
rule, or doing something for which there is no rule against, there is
a tremendous amount of nay-saying..
A totally seperate, censorable cf? No chance.
Abolish a functionally useless forsed-password change. Oh, we
mustn't do that.
Kill verification, on non-voting memberships. Oh, never.
Never mind that this would certainly help grex be as rules-free as
possible.
Well, if that was the original intent, I see that's long dead.
If it isn't, then there certainly is much to be done to get rid of the
love of the rules that I see here.
|
steve
|
|
response 54 of 171:
|
Apr 30 01:50 UTC 1995 |
Thats right.
There are some things we *need* to do. Not because we want
to, but because we really need to.
Look at other systems on the net, and look at their restrictions.
Then look at Grex. I think the difference is pretty clear.
But, just because we don't have a lot of rules, it doesn't
mean that we shouldn't have any, nor does it mean that everything
can be open. We're an open system but we don't give out root access.
Mail is private for each individual.
Just because we don't impose hundreds of policies doesn't
mean that we shouldn't impose any.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 55 of 171:
|
Apr 30 03:01 UTC 1995 |
No, steve, I mean that you are steadily imposing more and more
policies, and that the ones that have little to no redeeming value
are hung onto with little more than a "well we just won't drop that".
|
steve
|
|
response 56 of 171:
|
Apr 30 03:39 UTC 1995 |
You really think that? Interesting.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 57 of 171:
|
Apr 30 05:19 UTC 1995 |
Chris, would you please list the five last of the "more and more
policies" that you say are being imposed?
|
gregc
|
|
response 58 of 171:
|
Apr 30 06:11 UTC 1995 |
Sidhe, you continue to speak of the forced password issue as:
"a functionally useless" system
and as "one that has little to no redeeming value"
You are stating the above as though they are irrefutable, obvious fact.
Whereas, they are actually just your *opinion*. An opinion that many, myself
included, do not share.
Before you attempt to prove a point by ticking off various "facts" to
support your position, you would be better served by learning the difference
between an objective fact, and a subjective opinion.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 59 of 171:
|
May 1 09:39 UTC 1995 |
You were the one to list them as fact, and then accuse me of as much,
greg. Don't confuse the issue. Yes, it's my opinion, as yours is. Your
point?
Steve- yes, that's the view from here.
|
gregc
|
|
response 60 of 171:
|
May 1 10:00 UTC 1995 |
My point? I stated my point pretty clearly in #58. Why don't you read it
again.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 61 of 171:
|
May 2 07:25 UTC 1995 |
Your point there is dead, my friend, as I pointed out that it was
you, not I, that called what I said "fact", when like your post, it
is merely opinion. Do you have another point, or not?
|
gregc
|
|
response 62 of 171:
|
May 2 09:09 UTC 1995 |
No, your lack of comprehension skills makes further dialogue pointless.
|
avi
|
|
response 63 of 171:
|
May 3 01:41 UTC 1995 |
Hmm...we were sorta wondering off topic there. Anyhow, what is to be
done here? Is this item going to go silent now? Why not try one of the ideas
mentioned before? <avi asks annoying stupid questions>
|
popcorn
|
|
response 64 of 171:
|
May 3 12:49 UTC 1995 |
I was kinda curious what kind of punishments you were advocating in #29.
I can't think of any kind of punishment that could be carried out on an
open-access system, since anybody being punished could just create a new
account.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 65 of 171:
|
May 3 17:20 UTC 1995 |
One of the proposed punishments in #29 was "a warning". It did not
say, however, a warning of what. I took it to mean just to talk to
the person harassing someone else (or whatever the action ws) and
ask them to quit. The most severe "punishment" would be the cancellation
of the account - and this would be a punishment even though another can
be created, because the new account would be subject to cancellation too
if the problem arose again. This would get boring, and of course the
criminal would reform ;->
|
popcorn
|
|
response 66 of 171:
|
May 3 20:03 UTC 1995 |
Alas, I think that would likely get boring for staff long before it
got boring for the so-called criminal. :(
|
davel
|
|
response 67 of 171:
|
May 4 01:15 UTC 1995 |
Send bruno after them ...
|
steve
|
|
response 68 of 171:
|
May 4 01:45 UTC 1995 |
If we get someone on here who has done something nasty, we inform
the site that they telnetted in from about it. Obviously this doesn't
work for local dialin people, but it does work quite well in most
cases. It is usually the case that when someone is screwing around
here, they're doing it elsewhere too (often with more spectacular
results), and the administrators of the other sites have appreciated
hearing about stuff that went on here.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 69 of 171:
|
May 4 21:15 UTC 1995 |
Gregc- your lasst entry was unecessary, and rude, not to mention
presumptive. Kindly consider something more like, "I don't seee the
point in carrying this further," rather than the tack you took. Thank you.
My apologies for the interruption. Carry on.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 70 of 171:
|
May 5 15:38 UTC 1995 |
I'm still thinking about the question, "Does Grex have lots of rules?"
The only rules for users that I can think of are:
* Don't hog system resources
* Don't do illegal stuff
* Send in ID (and money) to become a member
* If you're a member, please vote
* Try to have fun!
I'm sure there are a few more that I've forgotten. But it's not like
there's an endless list of do's and don'ts, committees formed just to
oversee rule enforcement, and nasty punishments for transgressors.
People aren't here to make, enforce, or follow rules; we're all here to
have fun with computers.
|
steve
|
|
response 71 of 171:
|
May 5 16:59 UTC 1995 |
I think that the primary rule for Grex is something akin to
the golden rule: do onto others as you wouldhave them do onto you.
That covers most of it.
|
ajax
|
|
response 72 of 171:
|
May 5 18:49 UTC 1995 |
Re 70, don't forget:
* Change your password once a year
|
steve
|
|
response 73 of 171:
|
May 6 02:17 UTC 1995 |
Heh.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 74 of 171:
|
May 6 03:48 UTC 1995 |
Re 72: That's part of the system. If you are going to say that that's a
"rule", then say also that it's a rule that you must enter your login
and PW every time you log on. And that you must choose a shell (menu,
bbs, etc). And that you must have an e-mail acct here. And that you
must login at least once per 90 days. And that you may log in only
by dial-in, telnet, or console (if you are staff or pseudo-staff).
Not everything is a "rule".
|