|
512. wabbit - 11/25/1999 11:15:01 AM Not deliberately. I moved posts into this thread and for some reason they didn't all make it. The post number 510 never showed up, though the number was listed in the header. I have no idea what happened. My apologies for the lost post(s). 513. ee - 11/25/1999 12:15:50 PM Post 510 showed up above 509 as 509 514. wabbit - 11/25/1999 12:51:33 PM Rosetta,
"I think you have made a terrible mistake in letting that person be the moderator of mote's religious thread. From all his past behavior, he shouldn't have that responsibility and isn't acting like an adult. He only seems to be here to harass people."
How and why Nostradamus became the host of the Spiritual Issues thread has been discussed already. Your problem with him has surfaced only since you discovered who he is. Prior to that, you didn't seem to have a problem with him, which leads me to believe that you are disregarding the past two months in favor of dredging up what happened two months ago. Repeatedly posting that you think Nostradamus is a stalker and a woman abuser could also be seen as harassment, couldn't it? Perhaps if you knock it off, Nostradamus will let you post in Spiritual Issues again.
"Are you mad?"
This is entirely possible. 515. Nostradamus - 11/27/1999 9:24:07 AM CalGal posted this in Religion, I am responding here, since it is a Policy related issue:
2931. CalGal - 11/28/99 12:21:26 AM
I know that if somebody was doing to CalGal or wabbit what Rosetta is doing to me, his ass would be gone (or severely warned and then banned if he ignored the warnings), not just from one thread, but from the Mote, and the fact that the worst of his behavior goes on in Salon is just not relevant. Double-standards are wonderful things.
How on earth can you type with your head lodged so firmly up your ass? People aren't banned for "abuse". No one has ever called for a banning on anything other than releasing of private information, and both Wabbit and I have withstood far more abuse than the whiny little weasel who used to call himself God Gave Me A Tiny Prick.
The reason no one is fussing about Stone is because he's not doing anything worth fussing about. You don't even know what abuse looks like, you sanctimonious little shit, and you've certainly never tolerated any worth mentioning--in fact, you've caused plenty yourself. Frankly, I'm relieved that more people aren't revolted at your presence here, since protesting about it gives you more attention than you're worth.
If you delete this post, I'll just post it in the Playpen, and mention that you were too chickenshit to let it stand. And don't go around pissing about how unfair people are to you again.
On topic--that picture is utterly disgusting. You should have linked to it.
516. Nostradamus - 11/27/1999 9:24:20 AM CalGal
If you think for a moment that I would even consider deleting your post, you obviously don't know me very well.
I will ask that if you wish to continue this, that you do it in here (Policy) or if you prefer, in a thread you control, such as Movies. I don't think that the Mote or the SI thread is served by having a meltdown there.
If you think I am 'hiding' behind my new handle, which seems to be your implication, I will happily stop using this handle and use the God. handle full-time. If that was not your implication, sorry for the confusion.
I think most of your anger is due to the fact that you seemed to enjoy interacting with me when you didn't know who I was and now you feel betrayed somehow. I apologize for the duplicity but it was rendered necessary by the rash decision to ban me (to be fair, wabbit says that she never intended to ban me, she just told me that I was banned and led me to believe that I was banned but she always planned to merely suspend my ID).
Why are you giving me all this attention if you think that that's what I'm after when virtually nobody else seems to be alarmed or concerned by my decision or identity?
Obviously you are concerned solely with the release of private information since you are hiding behind a pseudonym. Those of us on the Mote who are not as fearful and who have chosen not to hide are more concerned with 'real' issues such as libel and slander. I don't see why you are unable to grasp that distinction. You are essentially a cartoon character named CalGal interacting in a public forum. I am Jonathan Ferguson of Vanier (suburb of Ottawa) Ontario Canada. Your anonymity weakens any claim of slander or libel you might attempt to make. I lack that shield. You can tolerate as much abuse as you like. If my threshold is lower, tough shit, deal with it. 517. Nostradamus - 11/27/1999 9:28:17 AM I didn't do a very good job of copying CalGal's post in religion. The part in italics is where she is quoting me. The rest is her. My response is in the following post (516). Sorry for the glitch. Feel free to remedy it as you see fit. 518. CalGal - 11/29/1999 11:03:18 AM Nos,
The only reason I responded in SI is because you made the original comment there--in fact, I note that you are amazingly inconsistent about the off-topic bullshit you'll tolerate.
I am not angry at you at all; you are just a disgusting little punk who was whining and I smacked you. As for your prior identity--I have assumed that you were the little shit previously known as God(.) since the second or third week you showed up as Nostradamus. I thought you were a smarmy fuck before that point anyway, so it wasn't any real loss. 519. Nostradamus - 11/29/1999 11:35:56 AM CalGal
I'd love to talk dirty with you, but I've got bigger fish to fry. Have a wonderful week. Say hi to Spawn from Uncle Nost.
==):-) 520. wabbit - 12/4/1999 2:08:25 AM The past few days have seen a couple fake posts made. One was clearly identified as such, two were not.
I'd like some feedback. Is this a breach of security or privacy? Is it something we should have an outright ban on (meaning we would write the ban of such posts into the RoE)? Lawyers, do we have a legal issue here regarding fraud? 521. CalGal - 12/4/1999 2:16:43 AM Per Wabbit's request, I'm posting here on the conversation in Suggestions about "fake" posts.
I have seen people get really freaked out about this, and in most cases the faker was Ace, who was clearly just kidding. But if people get that freaked by it when the faker is obviously goofing, just think how much trouble it will be if a fake post is made for what are questionably malicious motives.
Another consideration is the newbie who sees it for the first time and gets the impression that we're not a secure site.
I'm just throwing these into the mix for consideration. I'm actually not sure what I think of an outright ban.
If you want to know what I'd like to ban, it's those damn sound posts. Wizard, this isn't a slam at you in particular, I just hate hearing whatever noise it is whenever I enter a thread, post, or hit refresh. 522. AceofSpades - 12/4/1999 2:21:41 AM
If you want to know what I'd like to ban, it's those damn sound posts. Wizard, this isn't a slam at you in particular, I just hate hearing whatever noise it is whenever I enter a thread, post, or hit refresh.
I was going to say this myself. 523. CalGal - 12/4/1999 2:51:22 AM Ace,
Great minds, etc. 524. CalGal - 12/4/1999 3:00:36 AM Irv asked in the Suggestions thread if there was a way to put the post heading outside the text body, so that posts couldn't be faked.
I have spent some time over the past few months mulling this. I am not an HTML expert, but I've tossed it around at work too, to make sure there is nothing I've missed.
The obvious solution is to format the post heading, either in position or appearance, in such a way that can't be duplicated. I can't come with any possibilities for appearance. Position is the obvious approach--indent the post text from the heading, putting the heading in an area that can never be duplicated by a fake post.
The one way that I can think to do this is to format the posts into a table. That way I can put the post heading in one row, split the next cell in two and leave the first one blank. That would cause an indentation.
But I worry that this would cause a performance degradation, since that would be a lot of formatting. I'm also unreasonably attached to simplicity, and this is a messy solution for a problem that can be addressed procedurally.
There may be a gloriously simple solution that I've missed, and I'm open to suggestions. 525. IrvingSnodgrass - 12/4/1999 3:03:04 AM CalGal:
I'd hate to sacrifice performance for this relatively minor issue. But maybe with all the great minds here, we can come up with something.
But don't ask me... I have no idea what's possible and what isn't. 526. IrvingSnodgrass - 12/4/1999 2:47:38 AM My 2¢:
I think that fake posts should be banned, until we can find a way to make them impossible.
Regardless of intent, all fake posts should be deleted. Otherwise we risk opening a huge can of worms.
I know fake posts are usually harmless and can be humorous, but as I mentioned elsewhere, the few can easily ruin it for the many.
Sure, they're usually easy to detect (though there are tricks to make them less detectable), but not everyone is checking every post for time stamps and post numbers.
We should fix the posting software so that the post number appears outside the column (iow, the posts are indented). would this be difficult?
Until then, I saw ban fake posts altogether, or risk continual meltdowns and hassles. 527. CalGal - 12/4/1999 3:11:35 AM I could also use the block tag, I suppose. I tried it and didn't like it. Should have mentioned that. Still, the same issue--it's more formatting, and I jes don't like it.
I need to be clear, though--I'm a purist. I don't know that the performance problem would be that bad, and the hit would be on the client side, not the server (at least, I think that's how HTML works?). But it just seems so....messy.
There are other possible problems: - As it is now, a badly placed table command can screw up a page. This would make the problem worse.
- Someone could, possibly, figure out how to forge a post even with this approach. They would probably screw up any formatting downstream of it, but the post itself would look real.
In general, I would prefer a procedural approach to a sloppy code approach. Best of all is a clean code approach, which I haven't been able to think up yet.528. CalGal - 12/4/1999 3:14:22 AM Oh, I meant to say--I think it is imperative that we start deleting fake posts immediately. I've thought of that before now and forgot to mention it; I'm glad you brought it up.
Someone reading back over old posts could get very confused, otherwise.
Ideally, the fake post and any comments about it should be deleted--once it has been firmly established that the "victim" understands what happened, obviously.
This would be enough of a hassle that wabbit and thread hosts would start to get very cranky about forgeries, since it would cause extra work. 529. PelleNilsson - 12/4/1999 3:34:00 AM We may be building a molehill here. But OK, delete and withdraw HTML privilegies until the offender has apologised in public and promised not to do it again. A bit childish, but then we are a bit childish around here. 530. CalGal - 12/4/1999 4:59:29 AM I don't think it's a huge problem, but I have seen the panic that occurs when someone doesn't know what happened. It isn't fun, even for those few minutes until the explanation comes. But I really would rather not overengineer a solution to what is an infrequent occurrence.
531. AceofSpades - 12/11/1999 5:07:42 AM
Well, how about my new twist:
While we were down I posted "fake posts," but I changed the names. There is no "CelGel" or "IrvingSnootgrin" or "EricCartass" or "VonKredulous" or "pseudointellectus."
Is THAT against the rules, too?
|
