Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation - Mozilla

This is a discussion on Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation - Mozilla ; Apparently, one of the idiot spam mooses has considered 17 of my messages as OT. However, these messages have been dated as far back as July 1st. And yet, I'm being told about this now!!!! Don't you think I should ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 64

Thread: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

  1. Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    Apparently, one of the idiot spam mooses has considered 17
    of my messages as OT. However, these messages have been
    dated as far back as July 1st. And yet, I'm being told
    about this now!!!! Don't you think I should have been
    contacted and warned back then, and not now. What are you
    doing, saving them up until you build up a file of them?

    Furthermore, I hope this wasn't an attack against me, and
    that everyone who posted after my OT messages have been
    contacted as well and warned.

    This message that was sent to me I considered it was very
    *offensive* and very threatening. I think it should be
    reworded a little properly and tackful -- otherwise get rid
    of it. Or better yet, get rid of the Newsgroup Police.

    It also says "Please note we don't want to lose any support
    volunteers . . . " Well, if you keep sending out these
    disgusting messages you will. I'd sure like to know how
    many have left because of this retardation. I know of one
    person who left. Is this how the Mozilla community treats
    its volunteers? If so, with threats and offensive emails
    like this, you will lose them.

    --
    Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup
    only. And only click on the Reply button, not the Reply All
    or Reply to Author. Thanks!

    Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
    http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm

  2. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    In qqdndV83dSY6DPbnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@mozilla.org>,
    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
    wrote:

    >Furthermore, I hope this wasn't an attack against me, and
    >that everyone who posted after my OT messages have been
    >contacted as well and warned.
    >
    >This message that was sent to me I considered it was very
    >*offensive* and very threatening.


    It's not an attack against you and you're not being threatened.

    --
    Q

  3. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    Q wrote:
    > In qqdndV83dSY6DPbnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@mozilla.org>,
    > Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Furthermore, I hope this wasn't an attack against me, and
    >> that everyone who posted after my OT messages have been
    >> contacted as well and warned.
    >>
    >> This message that was sent to me I considered it was very
    >> *offensive* and very threatening.

    >
    > It's not an attack against you and you're not being threatened.
    >


    thats where you're wrong. It was on both accounts.

    --
    Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup
    only. And only click on the Reply button, not the Reply All
    or Reply to Author. Thanks!

    Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
    http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm

  4. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    Q wrote:
    > In qqdndV83dSY6DPbnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@mozilla.org>,
    > Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Furthermore, I hope this wasn't an attack against me, and
    >> that everyone who posted after my OT messages have been
    >> contacted as well and warned.
    >>
    >> This message that was sent to me I considered it was very
    >> *offensive* and very threatening.

    >
    > It's not an attack against you and you're not being threatened.
    >


    how would you know!? You're one of the Spam Moose Cops

    --
    Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup
    only. And only click on the Reply button, not the Reply All
    or Reply to Author. Thanks!

    Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
    http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm

  5. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    On 7/30/07 5:36 PM, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    > Apparently, one of the idiot spam mooses has considered 17 of my
    > messages as OT. However, these messages have been dated as far back
    > as July 1st. And yet, I'm being told about this now!!!! Don't you
    > think I should have been contacted and warned back then, and not now.
    > What are you doing, saving them up until you build up a file of them?
    >
    > Furthermore, I hope this wasn't an attack against me, and that
    > everyone who posted after my OT messages have been contacted as well
    > and warned.
    >
    > This message that was sent to me I considered it was very *offensive*
    > and very threatening. I think it should be reworded a little properly
    > and tackful -- otherwise get rid of it. Or better yet, get rid of the
    > Newsgroup Police.
    >
    > It also says "Please note we don't want to lose any support volunteers
    > . . . " Well, if you keep sending out these disgusting messages you
    > will. I'd sure like to know how many have left because of this
    > retardation. I know of one person who left. Is this how the Mozilla
    > community treats its volunteers? If so, with threats and offensive
    > emails like this, you will lose them.
    >


    Only 17? You are slipping .

    What i find offensive is your constant and insulting use of the phrase
    "idiot spam mooses".

    --
    Larry I. Gusaas
    Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan

    Website: http://larry-gusaas.com

  6. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    Larry Gusaas wrote:
    > On 7/30/07 5:36 PM, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >> Apparently, one of the idiot spam mooses has considered 17 of my
    >> messages as OT. However, these messages have been dated as far back
    >> as July 1st. And yet, I'm being told about this now!!!! Don't you
    >> think I should have been contacted and warned back then, and not now.
    >> What are you doing, saving them up until you build up a file of them?
    >>
    >> Furthermore, I hope this wasn't an attack against me, and that
    >> everyone who posted after my OT messages have been contacted as well
    >> and warned.
    >>
    >> This message that was sent to me I considered it was very *offensive*
    >> and very threatening. I think it should be reworded a little properly
    >> and tackful -- otherwise get rid of it. Or better yet, get rid of the
    >> Newsgroup Police.
    >>
    >> It also says "Please note we don't want to lose any support volunteers
    >> . . . " Well, if you keep sending out these disgusting messages you
    >> will. I'd sure like to know how many have left because of this
    >> retardation. I know of one person who left. Is this how the Mozilla
    >> community treats its volunteers? If so, with threats and offensive
    >> emails like this, you will lose them.
    >>

    >
    > Only 17? You are slipping .
    >
    > What i find offensive is your constant and insulting use of the phrase
    > "idiot spam mooses".
    >


    and why not? Its backwardness having Newsgroup Police. What
    other News Server have Newsgroup Police? What other server
    has someone send you an offensive email, threatening to
    remove your postings from the server? Is this what this
    Community wants to be known for -- "oh, you better
    becareful, that news server have Newsgroup Police! They'll
    remove your postings!"

    It was only one person that hates OT messages, and he's
    conned others into doing his dirty job and act as Idiot Spam
    Mooses [aka Newsgroup Police].

    --
    Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup
    only. And only click on the Reply button, not the Reply All
    or Reply to Author. Thanks!

    Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
    http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm

  7. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    On 30.07.2007 20:49, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > Larry Gusaas wrote:
    >> On 7/30/07 5:36 PM, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>> Apparently, one of the idiot spam mooses has considered 17 of my
    >>> messages as OT. However, these messages have been dated as far back
    >>> as July 1st. And yet, I'm being told about this now!!!! Don't you
    >>> think I should have been contacted and warned back then, and not now.
    >>> What are you doing, saving them up until you build up a file of them?
    >>>
    >>> Furthermore, I hope this wasn't an attack against me, and that
    >>> everyone who posted after my OT messages have been contacted as well
    >>> and warned.
    >>>
    >>> This message that was sent to me I considered it was very *offensive*
    >>> and very threatening. I think it should be reworded a little properly
    >>> and tackful -- otherwise get rid of it. Or better yet, get rid of the
    >>> Newsgroup Police.
    >>>
    >>> It also says "Please note we don't want to lose any support volunteers
    >>> . . . " Well, if you keep sending out these disgusting messages you
    >>> will. I'd sure like to know how many have left because of this
    >>> retardation. I know of one person who left. Is this how the Mozilla
    >>> community treats its volunteers? If so, with threats and offensive
    >>> emails like this, you will lose them.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Only 17? You are slipping .
    >>
    >> What i find offensive is your constant and insulting use of the phrase
    >> "idiot spam mooses".
    >>

    >
    > and why not? Its backwardness having Newsgroup Police. What
    > other News Server have Newsgroup Police? What other server
    > has someone send you an offensive email, threatening to
    > remove your postings from the server? Is this what this
    > Community wants to be known for -- "oh, you better
    > becareful, that news server have Newsgroup Police! They'll
    > remove your postings!"
    >
    > It was only one person that hates OT messages, and he's
    > conned others into doing his dirty job and act as Idiot Spam
    > Mooses [aka Newsgroup Police].
    >


    It's hard for me to enter comments on the running of this server as a
    "user" because of my involvement with AOL/Netscape. However, you really
    need to take this to email and yes, you deserve an explanation in
    detail. This is the way we did it and continue to do it, if necessary,
    on Secnews.

    Try to keep in mind that these folks are trying to keep order on this
    server the best they know how, following the outline of the etiquette
    guidelines, etc. If it doesn't work then it will die a natural death on
    it's own and the admin(s) will come up with another plan hopefully
    suitable to all users.

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  8. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    Jay Garcia wrote:
    > you really
    > need to take this to email and yes, you deserve an explanation in
    > detail.


    no, I think the rest of the Community should know whats
    going on and how it can affect them. Thats why I deserve an
    explanation here. Otherwise, what are they affraid of?

    This is the way we did it and continue to do it, if necessary,
    > on Secnews.


    I thought you said there was no Police and no
    deleting/removing of messages on that server.
    Unfortunately, I can't provide proof of that because the
    messages on that server have expired.

    > Try to keep in mind that these folks are trying to keep order on this
    > server the best they know how, following the outline of the etiquette
    > guidelines, etc.


    sending out *offensive* and threating messages isn't

    --
    Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup
    only. And only click on the Reply button, not the Reply All
    or Reply to Author. Thanks!

    Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
    http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm

  9. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    Jay Garcia wrote:
    > On 30.07.2007 20:49, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >
    > --- Original Message ---
    >
    >> Larry Gusaas wrote:
    >>> On 7/30/07 5:36 PM, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>>> Apparently, one of the idiot spam mooses has considered 17 of my
    >>>> messages as OT. However, these messages have been dated as far back
    >>>> as July 1st. And yet, I'm being told about this now!!!! Don't you
    >>>> think I should have been contacted and warned back then, and not now.
    >>>> What are you doing, saving them up until you build up a file of them?
    >>>>
    >>>> Furthermore, I hope this wasn't an attack against me, and that
    >>>> everyone who posted after my OT messages have been contacted as well
    >>>> and warned.
    >>>>
    >>>> This message that was sent to me I considered it was very *offensive*
    >>>> and very threatening. I think it should be reworded a little properly
    >>>> and tackful -- otherwise get rid of it. Or better yet, get rid of the
    >>>> Newsgroup Police.
    >>>>
    >>>> It also says "Please note we don't want to lose any support volunteers
    >>>> . . . " Well, if you keep sending out these disgusting messages you
    >>>> will. I'd sure like to know how many have left because of this
    >>>> retardation. I know of one person who left. Is this how the Mozilla
    >>>> community treats its volunteers? If so, with threats and offensive
    >>>> emails like this, you will lose them.
    >>>>
    >>> Only 17? You are slipping .
    >>>
    >>> What i find offensive is your constant and insulting use of the phrase
    >>> "idiot spam mooses".
    >>>

    >> and why not? Its backwardness having Newsgroup Police. What
    >> other News Server have Newsgroup Police? What other server
    >> has someone send you an offensive email, threatening to
    >> remove your postings from the server? Is this what this
    >> Community wants to be known for -- "oh, you better
    >> becareful, that news server have Newsgroup Police! They'll
    >> remove your postings!"
    >>
    >> It was only one person that hates OT messages, and he's
    >> conned others into doing his dirty job and act as Idiot Spam
    >> Mooses [aka Newsgroup Police].
    >>

    >
    > It's hard for me to enter comments on the running of this server as a
    > "user" because of my involvement with AOL/Netscape. However, you really
    > need to take this to email and yes, you deserve an explanation in
    > detail. This is the way we did it and continue to do it, if necessary,
    > on Secnews.
    >
    > Try to keep in mind that these folks are trying to keep order on this
    > server the best they know how, following the outline of the etiquette
    > guidelines, etc. If it doesn't work then it will die a natural death on
    > it's own and the admin(s) will come up with another plan hopefully
    > suitable to all users.
    >


    Some of us myself included are considering the possibility of looking
    for alternative products other than Mozilla products.

    I got a notice and out of 3 1/2 months there were 10 items cited; of
    the 10, 3 I admitted to being frivolous. the other 7 I responding to
    the reply immediate to the last comment I made in the thread shown. and
    Explanation given.

    I also commented that I will try and Make and effort. I think this will
    be my third comment or post the entire day. And am fearful that I will
    be thrown of the groups.

    I also read and comment to office 2004 groups (Word, Excel, PowerPoint)
    they note that the difference between them and other groups and servers
    They state "we consider ourselves as Communities, and its sad the others
    want to tightly control free thought"

    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
    If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailtojones@kimbanet.com
    http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
    Mac G4-500, OSX.3.9 Mac 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 Gb, OSX.4.10
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

  10. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:
    > Some of us myself included are considering the possibility of looking
    > for alternative products other than Mozilla products.


    yuppers, thats very correct. Opera is starting to look good
    about now.

    > I also commented that I will try and Make and effort. I think this will
    > be my third comment or post the entire day. And am fearful that I will
    > be thrown of the groups.


    thats next: banning people. They did it on the secnews
    server and they may just do it here too. Just remember
    this: one of the Spam Mooses was involved on the old secnews
    server.

    > I also read and comment to office 2004 groups (Word, Excel, PowerPoint)
    > they note that the difference between them and other groups and servers
    > They state "we consider ourselves as Communities, and its sad the others
    > want to tightly control free thought"


    got any postings of those messages? Because of the attitude
    of the Head Spam Moose, he is giving the Mozilla Community
    here a bad rep.

    --
    Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup
    only. And only click on the Reply button, not the Reply All
    or Reply to Author. Thanks!

    Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
    http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm

  11. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    On 31.07.2007 09:50, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > This is the way we did it and continue to do it, if necessary,
    >> on Secnews.

    >
    > I thought you said there was no Police and no
    > deleting/removing of messages on that server.
    > Unfortunately, I can't provide proof of that because the
    > messages on that server have expired.


    There is no Police Department, the Champs watch the server, there are no
    warnings sent out, no posts deleted other than offensive porn-type
    stuff, etc. Users are allowed to dig their own hole in full view of
    their peers or vice-versa.

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  12. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    On 31.07.2007 15:08, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > thats next: banning people. They did it on the secnews
    > server and they may just do it here too. Just remember
    > this: one of the Spam Mooses was involved on the old secnews
    > server.


    Whoaa there hoss!!!! Only ONE user was banned and it was an official ban
    from Netscape, not from the Champs although we were consulted but didn't
    have the final say-so.

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  13. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    Jay Garcia wrote:
    > On 31.07.2007 15:08, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >
    > --- Original Message ---
    >
    >> thats next: banning people. They did it on the secnews
    >> server and they may just do it here too. Just remember
    >> this: one of the Spam Mooses was involved on the old secnews
    >> server.

    >
    > Whoaa there hoss!!!! Only ONE user was banned and it was an official ban
    > from Netscape, not from the Champs although we were consulted but didn't
    > have the final say-so.


    Thinking back to that period on secnews, do you think the ban was
    effective? My opinion is, at least for the short term, it exacerbated
    the problem. I think it was ultimately peer pressure that resolved the
    situation.

    Would you recommend doing the same today?

    --
    To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and, whatever you hit,
    call it the target.


  14. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    Jay Garcia wrote:
    > On 31.07.2007 15:08, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >
    > --- Original Message ---
    >
    >> thats next: banning people. They did it on the secnews
    >> server and they may just do it here too. Just remember
    >> this: one of the Spam Mooses was involved on the old secnews
    >> server.

    >
    > Whoaa there hoss!!!! Only ONE user was banned and it was an official ban
    > from Netscape, not from the Champs although we were consulted but didn't
    > have the final say-so.
    >


    thats not what the emails I've been saying. According to
    them, several were ban.

    --
    Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup
    only. And only click on the Reply button, not the Reply All
    or Reply to Author. Thanks!

    Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
    http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm

  15. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    On 31.07.2007 21:23, Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > Jay Garcia wrote:
    >> On 31.07.2007 15:08, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>
    >> --- Original Message ---
    >>
    >>> thats next: banning people. They did it on the secnews
    >>> server and they may just do it here too. Just remember
    >>> this: one of the Spam Mooses was involved on the old secnews
    >>> server.

    >>
    >> Whoaa there hoss!!!! Only ONE user was banned and it was an official ban
    >> from Netscape, not from the Champs although we were consulted but didn't
    >> have the final say-so.

    >
    > Thinking back to that period on secnews, do you think the ban was
    > effective? My opinion is, at least for the short term, it exacerbated
    > the problem. I think it was ultimately peer pressure that resolved the
    > situation.
    >
    > Would you recommend doing the same today?
    >


    After the user was banned, the user kept up the posting until we
    authored a script that effectively denied access to all groups. It
    worked and still works today although I haven't seen this user making
    any attempts in over 2 years now.

    Would I recommend doing the same today?

    Depends on the user and the infraction(s). However, in the case you
    mention, no, it didn't exacerbate the issue as it was well out of hand
    regardless. It wasn't until the user starting using profanity and
    posting the same message hundreds of times in the same session that
    Netscape/AOL decided to deny access to the server altogether. There is
    always a point when the straw is the last straw and it took many straws
    before the last one was added. We/Netscape were quite tolerant and still
    are today.

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  16. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    On 31.07.2007 21:49, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > Jay Garcia wrote:
    >> On 31.07.2007 15:08, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>
    >> --- Original Message ---
    >>

    > thats not what the emails I've been saying. According to
    > them, several were ban.


    Well, as admin for secnews, there was only one that was officially
    banned since 1995 when the server went live and I've been an admin since
    the beginning. There were some that were scolded and threatened but only
    ONE was actually banned. The others just left on their own with no fanfare.

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  17. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    Jay Garcia wrote:
    > On 31.07.2007 21:23, Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:
    >
    > --- Original Message ---
    >
    >> Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>> On 31.07.2007 15:08, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>>
    >>> --- Original Message ---
    >>>
    >>>> thats next: banning people. They did it on the secnews
    >>>> server and they may just do it here too. Just remember
    >>>> this: one of the Spam Mooses was involved on the old secnews
    >>>> server.
    >>> Whoaa there hoss!!!! Only ONE user was banned and it was an official ban
    >>> from Netscape, not from the Champs although we were consulted but didn't
    >>> have the final say-so.

    >> Thinking back to that period on secnews, do you think the ban was
    >> effective? My opinion is, at least for the short term, it exacerbated
    >> the problem. I think it was ultimately peer pressure that resolved the
    >> situation.
    >>
    >> Would you recommend doing the same today?
    >>

    >
    > After the user was banned, the user kept up the posting until we
    > authored a script that effectively denied access to all groups. It
    > worked and still works today although I haven't seen this user making
    > any attempts in over 2 years now.


    I don't this script would work here on the mozilla.org
    server. After all, one can post from googlegroups.


    > There is
    > always a point when the straw is the last straw and it took many straws
    > before the last one was added. We/Netscape were quite tolerant and still
    > are today.


    you couldn't have been that tolerant if you had to ban that
    person.

    --
    Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup
    only. And only click on the Reply button, not the Reply All
    or Reply to Author. Thanks!

    Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
    http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm

  18. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    > Jay Garcia wrote:
    >> On 31.07.2007 21:23, Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:
    >>
    >> --- Original Message ---
    >>
    >>> Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>>> On 31.07.2007 15:08, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> --- Original Message ---
    >>>>
    >>>>> thats next: banning people. They did it on the secnews server and
    >>>>> they may just do it here too. Just remember this: one of the Spam
    >>>>> Mooses was involved on the old secnews server.
    >>>> Whoaa there hoss!!!! Only ONE user was banned and it was an official
    >>>> ban
    >>>> from Netscape, not from the Champs although we were consulted but
    >>>> didn't
    >>>> have the final say-so.
    >>> Thinking back to that period on secnews, do you think the ban was
    >>> effective? My opinion is, at least for the short term, it
    >>> exacerbated the problem. I think it was ultimately peer pressure
    >>> that resolved the situation.
    >>>
    >>> Would you recommend doing the same today?
    >>>

    >>
    >> After the user was banned, the user kept up the posting until we
    >> authored a script that effectively denied access to all groups. It
    >> worked and still works today although I haven't seen this user making
    >> any attempts in over 2 years now.

    >
    > I don't this script would work here on the mozilla.org server. After
    > all, one can post from googlegroups.
    >
    >
    >> There is
    >> always a point when the straw is the last straw and it took many straws
    >> before the last one was added. We/Netscape were quite tolerant and still
    >> are today.

    >
    > you couldn't have been that tolerant if you had to ban that person.


    I don't know if you were around in those days since you are somewhat of
    a NymShyfter, but if you are at all familiar with what was going on, it
    was quite tolerant up to a point. Specifically on Jay's part. He was
    the subject of voluminous profane postings.

    --
    To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and, whatever you hit,
    call it the target.


  19. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    On 31.07.2007 22:10, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > Jay Garcia wrote:
    >> On 31.07.2007 21:23, Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:
    >>
    >> --- Original Message ---
    >>
    >>> Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>>> On 31.07.2007 15:08, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> --- Original Message ---
    >>>>
    >>>>> thats next: banning people. They did it on the secnews
    >>>>> server and they may just do it here too. Just remember
    >>>>> this: one of the Spam Mooses was involved on the old secnews
    >>>>> server.
    >>>> Whoaa there hoss!!!! Only ONE user was banned and it was an official ban
    >>>> from Netscape, not from the Champs although we were consulted but didn't
    >>>> have the final say-so.
    >>> Thinking back to that period on secnews, do you think the ban was
    >>> effective? My opinion is, at least for the short term, it exacerbated
    >>> the problem. I think it was ultimately peer pressure that resolved the
    >>> situation.
    >>>
    >>> Would you recommend doing the same today?
    >>>

    >>
    >> After the user was banned, the user kept up the posting until we
    >> authored a script that effectively denied access to all groups. It
    >> worked and still works today although I haven't seen this user making
    >> any attempts in over 2 years now.

    >
    > I don't this script would work here on the mozilla.org
    > server. After all, one can post from googlegroups.
    >
    >
    >> There is
    >> always a point when the straw is the last straw and it took many straws
    >> before the last one was added. We/Netscape were quite tolerant and still
    >> are today.

    >
    > you couldn't have been that tolerant if you had to ban that
    > person.
    >


    You sure know how to stretch a point. One user out of several thousand
    is "tolerant" in my book seeing as how the tolerance threshold was
    crossed by only that one user.

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  20. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:
    > Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >> Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>> On 31.07.2007 21:23, Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:
    >>>
    >>> --- Original Message ---
    >>>
    >>>> Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>>>> On 31.07.2007 15:08, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> --- Original Message ---
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> thats next: banning people. They did it on the secnews server and
    >>>>>> they may just do it here too. Just remember this: one of the Spam
    >>>>>> Mooses was involved on the old secnews server.
    >>>>> Whoaa there hoss!!!! Only ONE user was banned and it was an official
    >>>>> ban
    >>>>> from Netscape, not from the Champs although we were consulted but
    >>>>> didn't
    >>>>> have the final say-so.
    >>>> Thinking back to that period on secnews, do you think the ban was
    >>>> effective? My opinion is, at least for the short term, it
    >>>> exacerbated the problem. I think it was ultimately peer pressure
    >>>> that resolved the situation.
    >>>>
    >>>> Would you recommend doing the same today?
    >>>>
    >>> After the user was banned, the user kept up the posting until we
    >>> authored a script that effectively denied access to all groups. It
    >>> worked and still works today although I haven't seen this user making
    >>> any attempts in over 2 years now.

    >> I don't this script would work here on the mozilla.org server. After
    >> all, one can post from googlegroups.
    >>
    >>
    >>> There is
    >>> always a point when the straw is the last straw and it took many straws
    >>> before the last one was added. We/Netscape were quite tolerant and still
    >>> are today.

    >> you couldn't have been that tolerant if you had to ban that person.

    >
    > I don't know if you were around in those days since you are somewhat of
    > a NymShyfter, but if you are at all familiar with what was going on, it
    > was quite tolerant up to a point. Specifically on Jay's part. He was
    > the subject of voluminous profane postings.
    >


    No I wasn't, but I know people who was, and they're telling
    me another story. Interesting that all these people who are
    telling the same story about more than one being banned
    can't be all wrong.

    Interesting how these people are telling me that it was more
    involved than Jay. As a matter of fact, it was several
    Netscape Champs who was involved.

    Further, its interesting how those same banned people from
    the secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within
    the moz server.

    --
    Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup
    only. And only click on the Reply button, not the Reply All
    or Reply to Author. Thanks!

    Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
    http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast