Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.7 9/23/84; site nsc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!nsc!chuqui From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group Subject: Re: Removing net.flame Message-ID: <2924@nsc.UUCP> Date: Sun, 30-Jun-85 17:46:24 EDT Article-I.D.: nsc.2924 Posted: Sun Jun 30 17:46:24 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 1-Jul-85 07:39:16 EDT References: <3892@alice.UUCP> <1818@amdcad.UUCP> <6179@ucla-cs.ARPA> Reply-To: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) Organization: The Dreamer Fithp Lines: 52 Xref: watmath net.news:3547 net.news.group:3206 Summary: In article <6179@ucla-cs.ARPA> das@ucla-cs.UUCP (David Smallberg) writes: >In article <1818@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >> >>Why don't we just take UCLA off the net? Seems that's where all the abusers ucla is a very small part of the problem. They just happened to be standing up and yelling when the net noticed. The problem isn't ucla, it is the concept of net.flame. >I think you've skipped a step in the "How to deal with Rogues" procedure: >1. Send a well-reasoned, non-inflammatory message to the rogue, explaining why > his behavior is not appropriate. >2. If that fails, try again; stronger language is OK here, as well as a preview > of later steps. >3. If that fails, drop a line to the rogue's site administrator. Be fair: > don't quote flames out of context. I'd suggest to the SA that the rogue be > told that if he makes one more annoying posting, he'll lose {his ability to > post/his account/his job/whatever is appropriate for his situation}. After > all, the rogue just may have misunderstood the rules of the game, and a note > from an "outsider" doesn't carry much weight compared to one's own SA. >4. If that fails, tell the SA that his/her site may be taken off the net if the > situation is not cleared up. >5. If that fails, do it. > >Please show how step 3 has failed. You seem to be reacting to three-week-old >postings and all the followups to them. Since step 3 happened, I haven't >noticed Alex playing any followup-line games, and Scott has rotated and >double-rotated all his postings (and at least one person has found them funny >enough to post a C program to read Scott's postings). In my specific case, I feel that step 3 failed in this case because the apology that was returned from Scott involved his cross posting to net.women and not the content of his posting in general, when my original complain was that it was posted AT ALL. Therefore, the actions taken by ucla against scott that I am aware of are not acceptable because they did not deal with my complaint. For the record, actions 4 and 5 up there simply have no enforcement mechanism. There simply isn't any way I can get an upstream site from ucla (to use an example, there are others that would qualify as well) to cancel their feed. We can talk about it, but to my knowledge it hasn't been done and a realistic way of doing it hasn't been found. All we can really do is set things up so that all messages from a specific user or site can be boycotted by individual sites and hope for a large enough boycott to make a notice. To my knowledge, this also has never occurred successfully. chuq -- :From the misfiring synapses of: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA The offices were very nice, and the clients were only raping the land, and then, of course, there was the money...