david@bragvax.UUCP (David DiGiacomo) (10/23/84)
In article <1622@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Big Brother @ the Ministry of Bistromatics?) writes: >I brought John Williams to the attention of the powers that be at Dec, and >they have assured me that he will act in a gentlemanly and proper manner or >they will shove his bicycle pump down his throat (or something to that >affect). They were not aware of his postings and did not appreciate the >negative implications he was giving their fine and upstanding company. Chuq, this is immoral and unfair! You seem to be confusing Usenet with real life... you are taking advantage of the natural paranoia of a bureaucracy to mess around with something more important than net.singles or even net.flame -- John Williams' job. Net problems should be solved on the net or left unsolved. Although the <DEL><DEL><DEL> stuff was a bit much, I actually enjoyed several of Williams' postings because they were not boring -- even the "bicycle pump" was in this category. Could you post/mail the names and phone numbers of the powers you spoke to at DEC? I would like to tell them that I disagree strongly with your opinion, and that the "negative implications" of suppressing employees freedom of expression far exceed those of "bicycle pump" messages which are understood by all to be personal. (Personally, I prefer not to buy chips from an arguably fine and upstanding company which employs informers/stool pigeons/rat finks ! :-)) -- David DiGiacomo, BRAG Systems Inc., San Mateo CA (415) 342-3963 (...decvax!ucbvax!hplabs!bragvax!david)
kissell@flairvax.UUCP (10/25/84)
(Shh! They're listening!) I don't subscribe to net.singles, so when the williams@kirk brouhaha spilled over into net.news, I checked out the back issues. I was suprised to find that the articles in question were short, crisply written, and pretty funny. Offensive as they might have been to some, I found them much better than his rambling attempts to sieze control of net.philosophy a few months ago. Some folks are just better at scatology than ontology, I guess...
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) (10/26/84)
> >I brought John Williams to the attention of the powers that be at Dec, and > >they have assured me that he will act in a gentlemanly and proper manner or > > Chuq, this is immoral and unfair! You seem to be confusing Usenet with > real life... you are taking advantage of the natural paranoia of a > bureaucracy to mess around with something more important than > net.singles or even net.flame -- John Williams' job. Net problems > should be solved on the net or left unsolved. I've gotten a fair amount of mail on this one-- probably not unjustified as I didn't write the thing as well as I should have. I was still rather ticked off by the whole situation and I should have cooled off a bit more. Here is what transpired with Mr. Williams: 1) Mr. Williams started posting articles to net.singles. Some of these articles upset or offended readers of the articles. None of them were particularly constructive. 2) A number of people wrote to Mr. Williams asking him to please clean up his act, myself included. The responses I've seen, mine included were exceptionally vile and abusive, and not at all cooperative. 3) I contacted two people at Dec: decwrl!johnsson and decvax!aps. Decwrl!larson wrote me back and said he had told Mr. Williams to act appropriately. He has not been told not to post, just not to post garbage. Neither of the people I talked to have anything to do with Mr. William's job that I know about, just the network connections. I disagree with you completely that these problems should be solved on the net or not at all, for a number of reasons: 1) When you run into a person who is acting in an immature nature, and does not wish to deal with the rest of the net on a mature level, you need to find someone who will for them. I call this the 'kindergarden teacher syndrome'. I see no reason why an entire audience of readers have to put up with one idiot who gets their jollies by making their lives miserable. This has been standard procedure for me for a long time. If someone does something wrong on the net, I talk to them about it. If they aren't willing to correct their actions and I think it is neccessary I will contact the usenet coordinator about the situation and let them know that someone on their site is creating problems. I've had to go to this length three or four times this year. 2) Like it or not, folks, every disclaimer in the world will not keep you from generating impressions of your company to the other people on the net. One person like Mr. Williams can do enough damage to make sure that everyone thinks that Dec is a rotten group of people, when only a small percentage of the people at Dec are rotten (*grin* a VERY small percent, Dec friends...). The posters at a site are what the net views as representative of that site, and I would use what I know of the people on the net at a site in deciding whether I want to work there. 3) Contrary to some people's opinions, Usenet is not a right, it is a priviledge. With priviledge comes responsibility. I am more than willing to work with people on a personal level when possible because I would want to have others work with me that way. When that person refuses to accept the responsibility to be fair to the rest of the users, all bets are off. I'm not willing to see the net ruined by a single bad egg. In Mr. Williams case, I attempted to discuss the situation with him and got nowhere, so I talked to someone who could be a bit more persuasive. If that is immoral or unfair, so is having a single person creating problems for the rest of the net because of his unwillingness to work WITH the rest of the net; and so is that one person creating negative feelings towards his employer on that net. If you still think I was wrong, I'm sorry. I don't. I hope I don't cause work related problems to Mr. Williams because he doesn't deserve them, but he should have thought of that before he opened himself up to it. chuq -- From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA I'd know those eyes from a million years away....
stevel@haddock.UUCP (10/27/84)
USENET is most definitly a privilege. It is supplied by the money of
the many institutions that pay the phone bill. There is far more traffic
than they can justify as useful. I estimate that 5% of the traffic,
and thats being very generous, is even remotely relevant to peoples work.
The net is not a playground, nad most people don't treat it as such.
If it is allowed to get out of hand sites will start closing down.
If someone abuses the use of the net and refuses to clean up their
acts then pointing it out to their supervisor, who is paying the bill,
is appropriate.
Steve Ludlum, decvax!yale-co!ima!stevel, {amd70|ihnp4!cbosgd}!ima!stevel
PS: opposing AND rational views welcome.moriarty@fluke.UUCP (Jeff Meyer) (10/29/84)
*Sigh* I really intended not to get involved in this rapidly expanding age of mod & net arguments (like I said before, I don't mind mod groups). But there are some matters brought up in Chuq's last letter that I very strongly disagree with, and don't see any way of ignoring :-). Chuq uses a two-point argument; the first I can understand, and agree with, to a degree, and the second I have some major arguments with. > This has been standard procedure for me for a long time. If someone > does something wrong on the net, I talk to them about it. If they > aren't willing to correct their actions and I think it is neccessary I > will contact the usenet coordinator about the situation and let them > know that someone on their site is creating problems. I've had to go to > this length three or four times this year. > Yes, I can understand someone who was tossing out thousands of articles, completely full of foul-mouthing or personal attacks, and unwilling to quit a reason to call in some help -- but let it be the USENET COORDINATOR at the site! That is their job, and that is what they are there for. What I think I, and others who read Chuq's first article didn't like was that it sounded as if he had gone to William's boss or a DEC executive. Well, why wouldn't that be a good idea, you ask (rhetorically, I presume)? Glad you asked. Here we come to the problem of what is "garbage"... obviously, someone doing massive foulmouthing on the net has little sympathy going for them. But what about a borderline case, where the poster may be spouting some wild ideas, or even sane ideas (there is a fine line between the two, and the line is VERY individual) which many people disagree with (lets say in a polite (by net standards :-) ) manner). Someone who doesn't like those ideas calls the Fromwitz Co. public affair officer, says Joe Blow is posting stupid religious/political/silly articles on the net. Said officer immediately puts a halt to posting by said user, as officer's job is mainly to worry about public image, and not net freedom of expression. This probably also goes down as a black mark on user's personal record. Now, what if the user were YOU, and someone who didn't like what YOU wrote calls in? I think you see my point. Going over heads is a nasty practice; when discourse doesn't work, I strongly suggest calling the coordinator. Again, I agree that there are some (a very, very few (thankfully)) who reasoning won't work with, and whose content is so completely crap that something above mail posting must be done. But let's not get carried away. If I understand correctly, Chuq called the Usenet site administrator, which seems to me to be the logic approach (I didn't get any letters from Williams, so I don't think I've got the ability or right to judge him). > 2) Like it or not, folks, every disclaimer in the world will not keep > you from generating impressions of your company to the other people on > the net. One person like Mr. Williams can do enough damage to make sure > that everyone thinks that Dec is a rotten group of people, when only a > small percentage of the people at Dec are rotten (*grin* a VERY small > percent, Dec friends...). The posters at a site are what the net views > as representative of that site, and I would use what I know of the > people on the net at a site in deciding whether I want to work there. Bogus. Totally bogus. I doubt very strongly that the net has gained the impression that all DEC people are "a rotten group of people" from Mr. Williams letter. Why? Because I believe (perhaps naively) that the majority of the people on the net are intelligent people. I don't judge the atmosphere or caliber of a company on one individual's posting; I don't believe any thinking person would. I CERTAINLY would use many other factors than postings before deciding whether to work there or not. Of course, there will always be people who will ignore an implicit or explicit disclaimer. I can't alter the fact, just as I cannot alter bigotry or prejudice, except in myself. But if I was to second-guess my readership, I would end up not printing anything which might offend those with the most serious or sensitive of temperment. It is destructive to those who read your work; it is destructive to the principle of communication of ideas; and most importantly, it is destructive to yourself, because you are limiting yourself for writing what you believe in. Of course, Chuq, one should try to keep a reasonable tone in one's notes (unless it's in net.flame); it not only gives others a good impression of your company, it gives them a good impression of YOU! But don't use the excuse that you're screwing up the company's rep -- if one runs a filter through all correspondence, one ends up with a bland concoction which is of little use to anyone. > 3) Contrary to some people's opinions, Usenet is not a right, it is a > priviledge. With priviledge comes responsibility. Where have I heard that before? Spider-Man? (No, no, that's "with great power comes great responsibility" :-) ). Absolutely correct -- it's rather like driving. But one of the things which makes it a privilege to post to this group is the freedom of ideas, and the conflicts of opinion. I can understand and agree with Chuq's actions in this case -- it sounds as if it is a very clear-cut, definitive case of someone really "misusing" the net -- posting abuse and personal attacks, which is definitely not something netnews was built for. What I wish to underline is 1) how to deal with someone who has crossed the line (talking via mail, and then a complaint to the Usenet site administrator, not someone who is responsible for this person's job, or higher up in the company that the person); and 2) (and more importantly) remember that this type of poster is RARE -- think before you take step #2. This is not just someone who you disagree with (even violently) -- this is someone who is being constantly abusive on the net (and not in net.flame -- it's de rigeur (sp?) there...). I just don't want to see people banged off the net just for being in opposition to the majority, or due to an over-zealous administrator who views the person as a danger. One unc!tim is enough. Oh, on a side note, is Bistromatics like Biometrics? Or what? "DANGER is my BUSINESS" Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc. UUCP: {cornell,decvax,ihnp4,sdcsvax,tektronix,utcsrgv}!uw-beaver \ {allegra,gatech!sb1,hplabs!lbl-csam,decwrl!sun,ssc-vax} -- !fluke!moriarty ARPA: fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (10/29/84)
Most companies do not like to have their employees behaving in a way uncomplimentary to themselves (and implicitly their company) in a public forum. Usenet is such a public forum. Do you think it is fair to try to hide Mr. Williams' behavior from his supervision? Going to somebodies boss and complaining is certainly a last resort, but every so often it has to be done. The damage from posting attacks of a personal or ethnic or sexual nature can be quite severe. It wasn't long ago when a joke about black people was posted to net.jokes. Someone on the other side of the net got offended, and filed an affirmative action complaint. Netnews was nearly removed from all the machines at that location, and the last I heard, they still only get business related groups.
jhall@ihuxu.UUCP (John R. Hall-"the samurai MTS") (10/29/84)
Well, I still feel that net articles reflect the views of the posters, and have no ill effect on my views on the company or university that owns the machine. I haven't any idea how "most companies" feel. However, ATT-BL has a very strong affirmative action commitment, so it doesn't surprise me that the Denver machines got restricted net access as a result of the BLKTRAN joke. Now, I don't agree with decision because it cut off any further possibility of discussion. How else are we to learn? But I think it's great that the company didn't ignore the problem. As far as notifying supervision of wrongdoings on the net, I'd say it's rarely needed, and is acceptable only if a copy of all correspondence including the accusor's name is sent to the accusee (is that a word?). If I were a supervisor, I'd throw anonymous accusations in the trash. And if the accusee doesn't get a copy of the correspondence, it's backstabbing. My supervisor scores two points for sharing some very mild threats against me sent to him by another BTL dept., with no copies sent to me (this had nothing to do with the net, but the same principle applies). I think peer pressure is good enough to take care of most all infractions on the net. I once generated a string of about 45 flames as the result of one posting. I'd say these had a positive effect, in that now I think more carefully about what I post. But I'm still very outspoken, and unmoderated newsgroups are one of the uncensored means of communicating. And that's the way I think it should be. -- --John R. Hall, ...ihnp4!ihuxu!jhall "And may your days be celebrations"
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (10/30/84)
OK, I see I was misunderstood. Let me spell it out in detail. If you see someone doing something you feel is inappropriate in public (e.g. on the net,) first send them mail, POLITELY asking them not to do that. You probably won't be the only one. In fact, the person will probably get lots of unpolite mail, so try to make yours the one that says what it must but is polite enough to stand apart from the crowd. If the behavior continues or the one posting was so horrible that some followup action is required, complain to the Usenet contact for the machine in question. Send a carbon copy of the complaint to me. If, and only if, this does not solve the problem, I or someone I appoint will contact the person's boss. This is a LAST RESORT but sometimes it's the only resort left. (For example, the person might be the local Usenet contact, or the Usenet contact may lack authority to require the offender to comply.) In almost all cases, the desired result is that the person stop posting whatever messages are causing the problem. Only in extreme cases (e.g. the AA complaint) is a public apology in order. It is never the goal to get the person fired, and it hasn't happened yet. A word to the Usenet contact is usually enough to take care of the problem, so bringing in the boss is a very rare occurrence. (I'd guess once or twice a year.) In many circumstances, when it's gotten to this level, other innocent people lose netnews, so this is never desireable. By the way, for those who feel this places too much power in my hands, I'll be happy to appoint someone else the net trusts. Mark Horton
phil@amd.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (11/01/84)
> By the way, for those who feel this places too much power in my hands, > I'll be happy to appoint someone else the net trusts. > > Mark Horton I cast my vote for Mark Horton. If anyone can be trusted to handle things in a professional and effective manner it is Mark. -- This may not even represent my opinion, much less AMD's. Phil Ngai (408) 982-6554 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amd!phil ARPA: amd!phil@decwrl.ARPA
dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (11/02/84)
From: phil@amd.UUCP (Phil Ngai) > By the way, for those who feel this places too much power in my hands, > I'll be happy to appoint someone else the net trusts. > > Mark Horton I cast my vote for Mark Horton. If anyone can be trusted to handle things in a professional and effective manner it is Mark. I second the thought: Mark has always seemed to be very responsible and even-handed in his "administrative" capacity on the net. And besides, can you think of anyone else who the net would trust more? I can't.