response 68 of 130:

Dec 4 11:38 UTC 2003

Re #58, #60:  Joe's right.  If a staff member noticed that my account
was being used for some activity that violated terms of use or was
seriously impacting system performance, I would hope that they'd lock
my account immediately.  It would either be because I'd made a mistake
and done something unintentionally or because my account had been
broken into.  In situations like that, it's best to assume the worst
and straighten it out later.

response 70 of 130:

Dec 4 14:46 UTC 2003

Tod: The limit that newuser gives is 100K of mail per day.

response 72 of 130:

Dec 4 15:19 UTC 2003

Re resp:52: I disagree that there are no acceptable use guidelines.  See
resp:43.


If jp2's actions were actually making the system unusable, not just
potentially annoying people, then I understand and support staff's
actions.  One person can't be allowed to load the system so heavily that
no one else can use it.

response 74 of 130:

Dec 4 15:40 UTC 2003

So you knew the limit and you went *far* in excess of it.  Sounds to me like
you got exactly what was coming to you.

I don't think there should be any kind of exemption for election candidates.
I don't want Grex election spam any more than I want Pitt Student Government
election spam, or Presidential election spam. . . .

response 76 of 130:

Dec 4 19:34 UTC 2003

I think all of the staff is both benevolent and competent.  I don't 
think there are any bad intentions from the staff.  I vehemently 
disagree with resp:52.

My concern was for the election.  I was under the impression Jamie 
could not receive votes because the jp2 account had been disabled.  
That appears to have been a bad assumption on my part.  (You folks are 
better at this than I thought.)

I still don't see any malicious intent by jp2.  If he apologizes and 
promises not to do it again, would you reinstate his account?

response 78 of 130:

Dec 4 21:50 UTC 2003

That's good.

It does leave a question or two in my mind, though:

Did you know it was against Grex system policy to send mass e-mails?

Did you know it would cause a big drain for the system?  If not, with 
your background, how could you not have known?

response 80 of 130:

Dec 5 04:20 UTC 2003

It's called 'nice' , n00b.

response 84 of 130:

Dec 5 17:59 UTC 2003

On Grex?

response 86 of 130:

Dec 6 00:09 UTC 2003

By the way, all the accounts that recieved the mail were off-site.  I think
there was a sleep process as well.  Only a person who didn't care about how
the system would run would neglect those two points.

response 88 of 130:

Dec 6 15:55 UTC 2003

I hope you're moving that mail off-site.

response 90 of 130:

Dec 7 02:15 UTC 2003

If the email size limit wasn't *in* newuser at the time jp2 registered, how
was he tohave known? And besides Jamie, how is anyone that has registered that
long ago supposed to know the limit on email?

response 92 of 130:

Dec 7 02:50 UTC 2003

When we sent out 100 copies of a message it was for the Kiwanis club.  Would
it have been better to space them out over a few days?  (#69)