Re: attack of a usenet crybaby

[rgshacke@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu (Randy Shackelford)]

In article <36i6cq$f5k@ctnews2.sj.unisys.com>, garyg@unity.sj.unisys.com (Gary Greene) writes:

> Some private service providers require that their users sign such a
> document in order to protect the provider from liability in the event of
> real abuse:  break the rules, lose your account.  There are accepted
> use and practice guidelines but they have no force in law unless you sign
> them as a contract for services, or unless there is an implied contract a
> court will recognize.  However some other things do have force of law
> (abusive and harassing e-mail is prohibited under a variety of Federal
> and State statutes).  So in practice most providers are very quick to quash
> such conduct by their users if it verges on the truly objectionable.

I use a commercial provider that disclaims any responsibility for anything
its users say and it's in the contract. I'd be there now if not for a broken
news server.

> Educational sites almost always have a policy that formally defines what
> they will treat as objectionable behavior on the net.  You are party to
> that contract by virtue of being enrolled or employed.  Incivility generally
> doesn't count unless it really escapes the bounds.  Most often a hold is
> placed first on the account while the objection is investigated.  If the
> user appears guilty based on existing traffic found in the local database
> or in the backups then a penalty will result depending on the severity of
> the offense.  An immature user will usually be warned for a first offense
> and suspended for a subsequent repeat.  Sometimes the user will lose their
> access from that site permanently on a second offense, but I think most
> sites only suspend for a period of time.  A third such offense is net death
> at that site in most every case where a use policy is in place.  Some things
> rate net death on a first offense.

Considering how many people at my school even know what the net is, I would
expect that there is no clear cut policy. They do seem to like to pull access
at the drop of a hat though. There was a logon message on the unix machines
for a time that said IRC is not allowed and anyone using it will be booted,
for example.

> In the event that the user you cite can show that the language they object
> to is abusive of people because of race, gender, nationality, religion,
> creed, orientation, or previous condition, etc., there is a solid chance
> they *can* invoke such a penalty from the offender's system administrator
> at 99% of all sites.  I have personally obtained the permanent suspension
> of one person's account for sending mass-mail to people in a recovery group
> that told them to kill themselves.  Some sorts of idiocy, no matter how
> sophmoric, should not and do not have to be endured.
>
> I do not know how you are involved in this so please do not take my
> comments as a directed at you, though your comment seems to imply the
> person you cite is objecting to you.  Even if you are the person they are
> objecting to, this does not make them right.  Only you know the
> particulars.  However if you are the person, even if you are within the
> legal bounds, remember that a flame may be satisfying in the short run but
> civil discourse is more effective.

No actually I'm not one of the pottymouths in question. I'm just on the defense
against attacks of the family value police in one of the few remaining free
forums in existence. This is all moot as the original poster and I discussed
it and he made it clear that booting people was not his intent.
Thanx mucho for the input though.
--
Randy Shackelford
rgshacke@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu