|
423. AdamSelene - 9/21/1999 10:05:11 PM Hey, how did Spiderman post here without also showing up in the registrants list? Is this a bug? (No, it's just an arachnid. ;) 424. wabbit - 9/21/1999 11:07:53 PM Adam,
We spent a lot of time chasing Spiderman et. al. around last night deleting posts. The one in here was one I wasn't worried about. His various ID's have been banned, which is why the name doesn't show up on the registered participants list here anymore. 425. wabbit - 9/21/1999 11:10:29 PM I am against requiring people to have to use real names, however, requiring ISP based e-mail addresses will help us keep episodes like last night down to a dull roar. Nothing is 100%, but it will help. 426. AdamSelene - 9/21/1999 11:43:22 PM wabbit,
I didn't know about the spider infestation. If it's causing that much trouble, then by all means require ISPs. (Keep it as simple as possible, but no simpler.) 427. AdamSelene - 9/21/1999 11:48:29 PM wabbit,
Does this mean that no one can ever use the Spider-man name? I think it's rather cute. (It's properly spelled with a hyphen, btw. Check out any of his comic books - it was done to avoid any possible confusion with Superman.)
And while we're on the topic - at least, while I'm on it - is there any thought to allowing trademarked non-real names such as Spider-man? I just remembered that there are upwards of five lawsuits between Marvel Comics, Sony, and several others about the rights to the SM movie... They may be in a litigious mood these days. 428. wabbit - 9/21/1999 11:56:59 PM Funny you should mention that bit about using TM'd monikers, Adam, that crossed my mind last night. I don't think it should be a problem here, since we aren't using the name to sell or promote anything.
Right now, the "Spiderman" moniker is unavailable because it was banned. I wouldn't preclude the possibility that it might be made available in the future, but it won't be the near future. 429. CoralReef - 9/22/1999 1:45:52 AM Under what criterion were the Hitler/ Bloodnrapeboys/ Spiderman monikers banned? Was it known for sure that they were the preivously-banned God? If not, then I'm curious what the reasons were -- not that I'm against it, just would like to know. 430. CoralReef - 9/22/1999 2:00:16 AM Well the middle one is obvious since it relates to bloodnfire's name. 431. wabbit - 9/22/1999 2:04:55 AM RoE #3, as stated in the Suggestions thread. 432. CalGal - 9/22/1999 2:15:40 AM Coral,
I originally said that 50 posts were deleted, but I hadn't done the math. The creature went on a spamming spree in the Movies (70 posts), Spiritual Issues (40), and International thread (30). Other ugly comments and ids were strewn throughout the site. Saddam Hussein was another one he used. I saved a great deal of it before I deleted it.
It didn't matter who he was, quite frankly. Two things make me think it most likely that it was Cat/etc. 433. CalGal - 9/22/1999 2:16:28 AM And I left off the "rule #3" part, which wabbit just mentioned. 434. Nostradamus - 9/22/1999 6:50:52 AM (Keep it as simple as possible, but no simpler.)
Whoever said that must be pretty simple. 435. CalGal - 9/22/1999 7:25:11 AM I dunno about simple, but he sure was optimistic. 436. RosettaSTONE - 9/22/1999 7:47:21 AM That quote is from theoretical physicist Albert Einstein, Nostradamus. 437. bloodnfire - 9/22/1999 9:09:06 AM Bloodnrapeboys!!?? Mmmmm. And donkeys!!?? (at one stage of the evening). And my Uncle !!! Listen, if anyone had ever seen my uncle (I mean absolutely no disrespect) I'd have been better off with a donkey.
The fact is that when people are joined together in doing something really worthwhile and for the 'public good', then maliciousness will most often 'raise its ugly head'. For the non-believers in our midst this may be a psychological reaction. For the believers, it is a sign that the 'enemy' is livid. Please be encouraged. We have a wonderful Forum shaping up here, and last night was a 'seal of approval' on it as far as I can see. But then, I'm a dumb 'Thumper'
:-)
438. AdamSelene - 9/22/1999 9:46:48 AM "Pretty simple?" I'm sure Albert would have been amused! (He was optimistic, though.)
Thanks Rosetta, it's nice to know someone's paying attention. (By the way, what's it like to star with Fred and Wilma?) 439. wabbit - 9/22/1999 11:17:07 PM I'm pretty happy with the revisions Cal has made to the RoE and I think we should get it posted asap. Any objections or suggestions should be made today. 440. Raskolnikov - 9/23/1999 2:03:13 AM I think requiring a permanent e-mail is a good idea, although it will be tough to keep track of the various freemail domain names. 441. CalGal - 9/23/1999 2:20:11 AM I made the changes and loaded it to the development site. I don't have access to production--there is one bug in the page I couldn't fix (it was 3 am and I was tired). For some reason, the page wasn't displaying in Netscape. No clue why. I asked Alistair to fix the bug if it was simple and install it.
442. Spudboy - 9/23/1999 9:29:25 AM I like the way this is resolving itself. However, I'm not sure that the rules necessarily address all situations in the appropriate manner, largely because they seem not to recognize differences in motive. Specifically, I'm wondering how they would be applied to the situation in the Fray in which my real-life ID became widely known.
To recap: I wrote a piece for Salon magazine. Irv, being my pal (but ignorant of my wish to remain firmly anonymous), posted a link in Fraygrant's Corner telling people to check out the spudboy article, but the link made no mention of my name. ThomasD, being my frequent antagonist, found the link, went to the rather higher-trafficked Politics thread, and reprinted most of its first several paragraphs. More to the point, he twice printed my full name in capital letters, and addressed me by my real name. (I contacted Irv after I'd noticed the posts -- a half-day later -- and the posts were removed about a day after they first appeared.)
(If one wanted a rough analogy to the CalGal/Seguine scenario, it would be the same as if Sequine had posted her cipher, after which God, upon figuring out that her real name was Serephina Goodbody, ran about The Mote and posted in the most popular threads here in all capital letters, telling everyone: "CalGal's real name is Serephina Goodbody!")
The difference, in my case: the original offending post was more accidental than malicious, and there was relatively little harm in it, especially if people had just clicked on the link, read it and then let it quietly drop, as I'd hoped would happen. The second offense, however, had the effect of not only publishing my name directly, but further drawing attention to it in the ensuing debate as I pleaded vainly with Thomas to stop using my IRL ID. And it was obviously malicious.
|
