10/13   I asked a bit earlier how many of you angry motd-ers are actual CSUA
        \_ Who's angry?  This is a non-issue.  The CSUA politburo should do
           whatever the active CSUA members (i.e. enrolled undergrads) vote
           to do.  We're just excercising the privilege of the ancient to
           smirk condescendingly on the sillinesses that the puppies come
           up with :-)  -John
        voters.  I am guessing very few are.  The reality is this is not your
        machine, and this is not your organization, anymore.  The current
        students in charge are free to run things however they wish.  As
        someone so bluntly put it below, "the decision stands and is not
        debatable".  I do find it amusing that after all the alum donations
        to spiff up the place, we are then told off so cavalierly.
                    \- raising the matter of "are you a current ucb
                       undergrad" might be relevant if the issue was
                       about voting or representation, but if it is
                       about ideas, and they are making reasonable
                       points rather than just claiming "i am older
                       and smarter; you are young and naive" then
                       you should ignore where they ideas are coming
                       from but just address the ideas themselves
                       if they have merit. if the values of the
                       older members are that much out to lunch
                       how can you justify operating under a consitution
                       hardly changed from somethign they wrote ...
                       or are you claiming they somehow had your values
                       when in school but then become unmoored and
                       unhinged upon leaving the evans/sloda/cory environs.
        \_ I don't know, another question worth asking is "How many of the
           angry motd-ers donated?"  I did, and I pretty much agree with
           \_ "Did you donate?" is the CSUA's "you haven't served"  -John
              \_ Of course, "you haven't served" is occasionally also the
                 CSUA's "you haven't served". -gm
           politburo. Although, actually, perhaps a different experiment
           would be interesting. Part of the problem currently is the
           anonymity differential.  Things only got really nasty around
           jblack when kchang's diff exposed who it was posting the
           freeper links. Then some blow hard starting harrasing him
           anonymously.  If anonymity had been guaranteed, at least THAT
           wouldn't have happened. -jrleek
        \_ Check your crystal ball again, that wasn't my post.  The decision
           \_ mea culpa
           was debated extensively (see the pages upon pages in the minutes)
           and it saddens me that the anonimity was abused so badly that it
           will help to remove it.  I won't monitor you if you want to make
           your own world writable ~myname/sleezepit.motd where you can
           slander, insult and threaten as you please.  I think the csua
           motd should be a place where people can post and not be completely
           hounded.  When exactly did you donate by the way? -mrauser
           \- what is the rationale for not monitoring ~myname/sleezepit.motd
              but monitoring /etc/motd? --psb
              \_ If you really need to ask this you are SO dense.  Why do
                 you think I would possibly want to be responsible for
                 hateful comments on the csua's message of the day?  You
                 should probably just go think on it, this isn't worthy of
                 a response. -mrauser
                 \- ok i am a moron. tell me how you will deal with the
                    following: Anonymous A challenges john@soda
                    to a GUN DUEL in ~psb/motd.sleaze. Then PSB posts
                    "Hey John has been challeneged to a GUN DUEL in
                    ~psb/motd.sleaze!" to the motd.public ... this is
                    either signed by psb or "discovered" to be psb
                    via the motd.log.  questions presented:
                    1. is psb liable for something? if so, what?
                       is he reponsible for the threat or just running
                       a non-anonymous forum for thraets? so if psb could
                       find the original threatener A, is he then ok?
                       or is he guilty of helping out the threat?
                       if psb is guilty for helping ut the threat by cross
                       posting it, then isnt something who doesnt delete
                       an obnoxious comment in the motd also responsible
                       for "helping to spread disharmony on sloda"?
                       \_ hello, in the context of a threat you may
                          not be liable [ not 100% sure, maybe there
                          is some way to argue accomplice/conspiracy ]
                          in the context of defamation you could be
                          liable b/c you republished.
                    2. does the politburo not feel responsible in this
                       case since the official motd only contains a
                       POINTER to the inflammatory content?
                    3. maybe i am a moron, but it seems if the reason to
                       for the heavy handed intervention is stop threats
                       then this should extent to any reasonable public
                       forums on sloda. it certainly seems like i should
                       not even be allowed to advertise my evil motd in
                       the official sleaze free zone. although if i am not
                       allowed to post my pointer to ~psb/motd.sleaze, i have
                       to ask can i post a link to http://sleaze.psb.org with
                       the exact same discussion? ... so it IS ok to post a
                       "sleazy pointer" as long as it points out of CSUA
                       space? if that is not fine either, why is it
                       permissable to post offensive links at all?
                       again what is the criteria of "bad" ... offensive/
                       obscene? child porn? emotionally damaging comments?
                       [like calling somebody a clown? what if you like
                       clowns?] physical threats? what if i just post
                       "i would like to meet you in a boxing ring"?
                       \_ Partha, it's "GUN DUEL", not "a GUN DUEL".  -John
                          \- funny you should say that. --psb