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...