case studies

Tancorix · Post by **Tancorix** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 5:13 pm

Technopatra:

1: Good handling of the WSPR issue.
2: I'd keep the threads around somewhere for legal use, but I'm curious if they could be ghosted out or moved to an admin only type section where we would never see it. Keeping them visible serves no purpose except to inflate his ego.

Tancorix · Post by **Tancorix** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 9:34 pm

It's 11:33 Central Time...and I looked down at the bottom of the main page to see who the newest member is. The name appears as Larrysdiaper.

Hmmm...I wonder if that's a valid name or if WSPR is playing the role of the mythical phoenix, rising up from the ashes to strike back again?

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 9:42 pm

Hell, just put the libel-laden in a discreet, hidden folder if there's expectation of possible legal recourse in the future.

I'm thinking that there'll be more suitable examples to lock out here in the near future. Blatant commerce related threads more suitable for freezing with a note from the admin not only admonishing the OP but a link to the board's 'do's and dont's' is probably more appropriate.

technopatra · Post by **technopatra** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 3:21 pm

I dig the idea of moving the threads somewhere outta sight.

Thanks for the suggestions, Tancorix & Badger. That satisfies Chai Guy and Badger's, (and, honestly, my own) preference to get them the heck out of sight.

I agree that commerce - and other examples of non-malicious violations - is best addressed with a message and links to the TOS/CG.

technopatra · Post by **technopatra** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 3:55 pm

Tancorix wrote:It's 11:33 Central Time...and I looked down at the bottom of the main page to see who the newest member is. The name appears as Larrysdiaper.

Hmmm...I wonder if that's a valid name or if WSPR is playing the role of the mythical phoenix, rising up from the ashes to strike back again?

It's definitely not a WSPR reincarnation. The name itself isn't a direct personal attack, and we're not going to make a blanket policy against using "Larry" in the userid.

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 9:45 pm

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/cons ... endment06/
Sixth Amendment - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Panther

III · Post by **III** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 9:59 pm

i'm not sure what criminal prosecutions have to do with what we're discussing.

precipitate · Post by **precipitate** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 10:29 pm

Compulsive need to contribute verbose posts, regardless of their import to
the current discussion, perhaps.

Or maybe a reference to the idea that you cannot be prosecuted
without certain prerequisites in the judicial process, obliquely aimed at
terms and conditions which prohibit conduct that might lead to such
circumstances. Which has little to do with how civil litigation or liability fall
out in situations involving a corporate-sponsored discussion board and its
users.

technopatra · Post by **technopatra** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:11 am

precipitate wrote:.... a corporate-sponsored discussion board and its
users.

Point of clarification: the Black Rock LLC is a limited liability company, not a corporation. Splitting hairs, perhaps, but there it is.

Dan D. Lyon · Post by **Dan D. Lyon** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:24 am

technopatra wrote:Good question, Badger.

I wanted to leave them as examples of what not to do, and of what will happen when folks cross those lines. I think that a lot of people were bothered that no action was taken last time around, and I wanted them to know that now that our rules are in effect, we will enforce them for the betterment of our community. By freezing them, they will eventually fall off the page as other conversation ensue.

I put this in case studies both to notify you and because I do want to hear your opinions about it. What does everyone think? Should we just delete those kinds of threads? Delete but keep a log of the action? Freeze as is? Is there a better way of communicating admin actions? In Announcements?

What level of detail do you need to see to feel satisfied? I can't promise to be able to give it to you, but if I can, I will.

I think its great that you locked the WSPR threads, but the way that it has been done is unfair and still hurtful to the e-playa community. All the responses were deleted leaving the slanderous bile uncontested and uncontestable and at the top of the list – yuck! This is a very unsatisfying and unsatisfactory solution.

My suggestions:
You don’t need to make an example, because the rules clearly state that personal attacks and slander are not allowed. Either delete the thread completely or leave it fully functional and intact and simply block its privilege of rising to the top with new responses.

technopatra · Post by **technopatra** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:44 am

Dan D. Lyon wrote:
I think its great that you locked the WSPR threads, but the way that it has been done is unfair and still hurtful to the e-playa community. All the responses were deleted leaving the slanderous bile uncontested and uncontestable and at the top of the list – yuck! This is a very unsatisfying and unsatisfactory solution.

umm.. huh? No responses were deleted. I simply added one more reply then froze the thread.

Dan D. Lyon wrote:My suggestions:
You don’t need to make an example, because the rules clearly state that personal attacks and slander are not allowed. Either delete the thread completely or leave it fully functional and intact and simply block its privilege of rising to the top with new responses.

I hear you. We don't have the ability to allow responses to a thread but keep it at the bottom, but the previous of suggestion of moving the thread somewhere else - so that the community is not continually exposed to the crap - this would satisfy your concerns, no?

Dan D. Lyon · Post by **Dan D. Lyon** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 2:08 pm

technopatra wrote:
Dan D. Lyon wrote:
I think its great that you locked the WSPR threads, but the way that it has been done is unfair and still hurtful to the e-playa community. All the responses were deleted leaving the slanderous bile uncontested and uncontestable and at the top of the list – yuck! This is a very unsatisfying and unsatisfactory solution.
umm.. huh? No responses were deleted. I simply added one more reply then froze the thread.

Sorry, I hadn't noticed the post dates.

technopatra wrote:
Dan D. Lyon wrote:My suggestions:
You don’t need to make an example, because the rules clearly state that personal attacks and slander are not allowed. Either delete the thread completely or leave it fully functional and intact and simply block its privilege of rising to the top with new responses.
I hear you. We don't have the ability to allow responses to a thread but keep it at the bottom, but the previous of suggestion of moving the thread somewhere else - so that the community is not continually exposed to the crap - this would satisfy your concerns, no?

Yes, that might work. But I'm not so sure locking the thread is good -- not allowing a response feels stifling. I've noticed this community is pretty remarkable at self-cleansing... On the other hand, this is your playground, you make the rules, if someone breaks them, you're holding all the aces -- axing the hole thread seems reasonable to me.

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 2:52 pm

WHEN SOCIETY is orderly, a fool alone cannot disturb it;
when society is chaotic, a sage alone cannot bring order.

-Huainanzi

-------
Panther

technopatra · Post by **technopatra** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 9:25 am

Dan D. Lyon wrote:
Yes, that might work. But I'm not so sure locking the thread is good -- not allowing a response feels stifling. I've noticed this community is pretty remarkable at self-cleansing...

I like the term "self-cleansing" but the actual response process ends up being pretty dirty. if you go to the stopbm thread you'll see what I mean. When bad threads happen to good people, their responses generally end up snowballing - becoming, at some point just as hate-filled. That's really not what we're shooting for, here.

We exercise very little in the way of admin control incomparison to the number fo conversations happening, but what I've been hearing more of is the desire to just get the crap off the boards so it doesn't negatively affect folks' experiences here.

You make a valid point about people wanting to respond, but that' really very few people desiring to have their say, while literally thousands of others are having their experience affected just by reading those awful topic titles. It has a very big, very negative impact on the "lurkers" who comprise the majority of our users.

If I had a nickel for every burner I've told about the eplaya, who responded "yeah I checked it out for a while but there was just too much mean crap on it"....

precipitate · Post by **precipitate** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:24 am

It has a very big, very negative impact on the "lurkers" who comprise the majority of our users.

Oh, you mean the spectators?

Sorry. I couldn't resist. I concur with most of your points on this, though
I am really ambivalent about actually deleting things from public view. I
think there's merit in freezing threads. I think there's merit in
admonishing people for unsportsmanlike behavior. I also think there's
merit in retaining a full and complete record.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Sat Mar 13, 2004 4:46 am

I have a problem with these new so called members that have just signed up;

http://eplaya.burningman.org/profile.ph ... ile&u=3605

http://eplaya.burningman.org/profile.ph ... ile&u=3600

http://eplaya.burningman.org/profile.ph ... ile&u=3606

and 2 others I missed.

they do not seem to be burners of any sort. this is the problem I have with them;

1. they have as their websites, porn sites. I have no problems with porn but I do have a problem with these sites they post as their sites.
first off these sites are not of any particular burningman art related relevance. they have active x java shit applied to them that can cause harm to burner users computers.

2. I do not trust this individual that is signing up as a member with these sites as it can cause eplaya legal harm down the road. who is to know whether this is not a cop or government agency looking to entrap BM or a user for anything related to illegal porn distribution or or related charges.
(ok sure, call me paranoid.) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Mar12.html

3. I'm sure their ICQ is a bot that will cause further problems.

should anything be done about this?

Tancorix · Post by **Tancorix** » Sat Mar 13, 2004 6:42 am

This is one reason why I suggested the admin approval of new accounts in the TOS / Community Standards discussions. I don't know how everyone else feels about it, but in the cases Tony mentions above if it was my call I wouldn't approve them.

Now on the other hand there is nothing wrong with listing an adult site in your profile, if the board screened people out because of that Olivia might not have showed up and several of us would have missed out on the Suicide Girls web site.

I hope the admins have enough leeway to bounce accounts like this, if not when the standards and parts of the TOS can be reviewed, this needs to be on the agenda. We're going to see more and more of this I'm afraid before long.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Sat Mar 13, 2004 8:04 am

the latest one I've found is;

http://eplaya.burningman.org/profile.ph ... ile&u=3607

judging buy the name of the users they seem to be bots themselves.
these new users may not be people at all.

Time for someone to take a look at this.

Tancorix's idea of the admin approval of new accounts in the TOS / Community Standards discussions would be ok if the admins had time to do that sort of thing but realisticly no one not even hired help would be able to keep on top of this if and when this gets worse and out of control.

may I suggest that with every new member it be mandatory for every new member post a 1st message in order to be approved. this way the bots would be illiminated.

Tancorix · Post by **Tancorix** » Sat Mar 13, 2004 8:16 am

We have to be careful, this may not be what it appears. I'm kinda leery about calling in the troops for action because it may be legitimate people and the accounts haven't done anything wrong, yet. Remember, innocent until proven guilty? I'm trying to follow that mindset.

However...it might be a good idea to discuss hypothetical scenarios and see if the community, the admins, etc. can find a way to block it with minimal fuss should it become a problem. Do we need to revamp the TOS?

I 'll also offer a suggestion. I don't want to bring the moderator stuff back up due to the firestorm I hit last time. But I wouldn't mind helping the admins screen out new accounts. Does the name check out? I mean no WSPR II's etc, that sort of thing. Does the e-mail look legitimate? When they set up their profile did they link to the herbal viagra site? A little common sense screening might be helpful, again if the community and admins are open to it. And since I am on here at all times day or night, I could do it with ease. Is this a bad idea? Comments?

III · Post by **III** » Sat Mar 13, 2004 8:18 am

i don't get it.

if they're not posting, they're not really causing a problem for the community, right?

99% of the registered users aren't active here anyay, so a couple of superfluous and quiet bots really shouldn't matter.

i think a bigger issue would be dj's who spout the whole plur philosophy at others and still behave like assholes themselves.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Sat Mar 13, 2004 8:33 am

III wrote:i don't get it.

if they're not posting, they're not really causing a problem for the community, right?

The problem I forsee is that if it is a bot (or not) and a user from eplaya clicks on these sites, active x/java will take control of thier system.

dont know if you've experienced this sort of problem but it can really fuck things up for many many people.

this much i know.

III wrote: 99% of the registered users aren't active here anyay, so a couple of superfluous and quiet bots really shouldn't matter.

i think a bigger issue would be dj's who spout the whole plur philosophy at others and still behave like assholes themselves.

Unlike a bot or a site w/active x/java it's better when you've waited for an indivisual to screw up before you freeze them for not following the rules.
it's also less work for the admins to deal with people than with bots. especially with the algorythims that are available and new ones constantly comming out.

technopatra · Post by **technopatra** » Mon Mar 15, 2004 2:47 pm

DVD Burner wrote:I have a problem with these new so called members that have just signed up....

1. they have as their websites, porn sites. I have no problems with porn but I do have a problem with these sites they post as their sites.
first off these sites are not of any particular burningman art related relevance. they have active x java shit applied to them that can cause harm to burner users computers.

The question of Burning Man relevance of what they put as their personal websites is not really a relevant issue. I will say that if those sites were kiddie porn or otherwise harmful, we could make a case for having them change them, but otherwise, 'taint none of our business.

When you say harm, do you mean more than popup window hell? Cus I am unaware that visiting as site can do anyting but irritate you out of session, which is really not grounds to make someone change their info.

DVD Burner wrote: 2. I do not trust this individual that is signing up as a member with these sites as it can cause eplaya legal harm down the road. who is to know whether this is not a cop or government agency looking to entrap BM or a user for anything related to illegal porn distribution or or related charges.
(ok sure, call me paranoid.) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Mar12.html

3. I'm sure their ICQ is a bot that will cause further problems.

should anything be done about this?

Can you justify these claims which more info? Why/how could the ICQ cause trouble?

Currently, I see no reason to do anything about these. I'll need something akin to evidence that action need be taken before any will be.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Mar 15, 2004 5:41 pm

technopatra,

I wish I were as smart as you. You are awsome.

as usual you have a point. not much can be done at this point.

I just cant wait for this boty thing to

MAKE A BIG MISTAKE !

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 3:02 am

another new one. yes i'm keeping track of these.

http://eplaya.burningman.org/profile.ph ... ile&u=3633

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 3:14 am

This one looks like they ran out of ip addresses.

http://eplaya.burningman.org/profile.ph ... ile&u=3661

here are the others;

http://eplaya.burningman.org/profile.ph ... ile&u=3648

http://eplaya.burningman.org/profile.ph ... ile&u=3648

http://eplaya.burningman.org/profile.ph ... ile&u=3640

http://eplaya.burningman.org/profile.ph ... ile&u=3640

http://eplaya.burningman.org/profile.ph ... ile&u=3661

III · Post by **III** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 11:13 am

case study:

someone creates a new thread, in a different (possibly inappropriate) section, which consists of just a cut and paste from 8ish or so posts froma different thread.

does this fall under the thread duplication/multiposting restriction?

precipitate · Post by **precipitate** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 11:19 am

I think it falls under random-person-impersonating-a-moderator.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 12:09 pm

case studies:

shall I stop collecting these so called users?

I'll admit to being an "OOP"s kinda guy.

rodent · Post by **rodent** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 6:30 pm

III wrote:case study:

someone creates a new thread, in a different (possibly inappropriate) section, which consists of just a cut and paste from 8ish or so posts froma different thread.

does this fall under the thread duplication/multiposting restriction?

Depending on the context. It can be usefull when the original thread has drivted so far off topic that the thread isn't really recoverable (i.e. SBM-mayo). If someone wanted to continue a discussion, a fragment of a discussion, or a subject that was brought up in the middle of a thread, it would be a reasonable thing to copy'n'paste the relavent topics and coalese them into a new thread.

---
rodent (putting the eek in geek)

precipitate · Post by **precipitate** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 7:02 pm

> it would be a reasonable thing to copy'n'paste the relavent topics and
> coalese them into a new thread.

I disagree. It would be a reasonable thing to have enough moderators that
the relevant bits could be administratively migrated (intact, none of this
relying on people's proper use of BBCode for quoting, etc.) to a new
thread.

But I think the crucial issue here is that, in the absence of actual
moderation, it is silly to expect these threads to remain a pristine
repository of information. And I'm not sure that's their intended purpose.
And taking it upon yourself to cut and paste things, while possibly having
an admirable goal, is potentially a lot more disruptive than just leaving
stuff alone.

case studies

6th Amendment

To the Admin, an entreaty for laissez-faire governance.