webber@constance.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) (06/05/88)
In article <2398@ll1a.UUCP>, cej@ll1a.UUCP (Jones) writes: > In article <2134@rtech.UUCP>, daveb@llama.rtech.UUCP) writes: > > There is discussion of site responsibility for postings, particularly > > from commercial USENET service providers like Portal and the Well. Many > > people would agree that these sites have a greater moral obligation to > > the net because of the perceived lack of skill/knowledge of their user > > base. Actually, it is their administrators who have the perceived lack of skill/knowledge. I can't imagine any ``real'' usenet site having been dumb enough to call the postal authorities, much less post messages encouraging others to do the same. Their crime isn't having verbose users, or taking away accounts of such users, but for pulling federal authorities into a ``family'' matter, their connections should be dropped faster than a lead balloon. > There is an *easy* way with the current news software for > a copy of all postings originating at a site to be mailed to an > administrator. Just add a line like: How about something so that all postings from ``customer services'' get mailed to a user who can tell them when they are out of line? > I would like to suggest that the news administrators of > *all* sites, not to mention public sites, should know what their > posters are putting out on the net. I think all users should recieve mail of the contents of any messages that their admins plan on posting at least one day in advance of said posting. After all, such postings with their aura of ``officialdom'' can be quite damaging to a site's reputation. > Why be the last to know? Indeed. ------- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)
wisner@killer.UUCP (Bill Wisner) (06/06/88)
Say, Bob, where do you get those monstrously long Message-IDs? webber@constance.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) writes: >Actually, it is their administrators who have the perceived lack of >skill/knowledge. Cough, cough. Look up killer in the UUCP map, Bob. Oh. Excuse me. BOB. -- Bill Wisner ..!{ames,att,decwrl,ihnp4,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!wisner
webber@constance.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) (06/06/88)
In article <4356@killer.UUCP>, wisner@killer.UUCP (Bill Wisner) writes: > Say, Bob, where do you get those monstrously long Message-IDs? From Mel. > webber@constance.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) writes: > >Actually, it is their administrators who have the perceived lack of > >skill/knowledge. > > Cough, cough. Look up killer in the UUCP map, Bob. I have read the map entry for killer currently on rutgers. I can see no relevance to the discussion of Portal's customer service department's messages. Do you have a point to make or are you just enjoying the pause a non sequitur generally generates in discussion? ---- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)
wisner@killer.UUCP (Bill Wisner) (06/06/88)
webber@constance.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) writes: >I have read the map entry for killer currently on rutgers. I can see >no relevance to the discussion of Portal's customer service department's >messages. Do you have a point to make or are you just enjoying the pause >a non sequitur generally generates in discussion? The point is that you're making another one of those broad generalizations. comp.women supporters aren't universally rude; similarly, public access site administrators aren't universally incompetent. -- Bill Wisner ..!{ames,att,decwrl,ihnp4,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!wisner
webber@aramis.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) (06/07/88)
In article <4367@killer.UUCP>, wisner@killer.UUCP (Bill Wisner) writes: > webber@constance.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) writes: > ... > The point is that you're making another one of those broad generalizations. My message was perfectly in keeping with the one I was replying to that advocated sysadmin's monitoring user's postings (at all sites, not just public access ones). > comp.women supporters aren't universally rude; Please don't confuse me with Rick Adams. We are easy to tell apart. I am the one with the argyle socks in my construction boots. > similarly, public access site > administrators aren't universally incompetent. I did not say they were - what I said was that mistakes made by administrators (any administrator, not just public access ones) posting off-the-wall messages like the recent ones from customer service at portal about calling in the federal postal inspectors are far more damaging to the net than those posted by users and so it is more important that sysadmins submit their messages to ``policing'' by users than for users to submit their messages for ``policing'' by sysadmins. Not that such policing is actually warrented by the number of problems we have seen so far caused by either users or admins, but just that it is important to get one's priorities straight when and if we should ever go to such a set up. I find it disturbing that portal hasn't been dropped off the net given their willingness to call in the feds on such trivial matters and no indication from them that they now realize they might have over-reacted (which would be understandable given the silliness of the original reaction to the postings by the net at large). They speak of supplying a host of information about net usage to their users, but one wonders if they have read any of it themselves. While they were perfectly within their legal rights to take such action, that does not mean that we have to continue to associate with them. --------- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)