| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/23 |
| 2005/10/14 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll/Jblack] UID:40089 Activity:nil |
10/14 While it is true that someone made a threat to jblack, who
started it? jblack persistently posted freeper trolls and attempted
at hiding freeper urls, knowingly how they really piss off
knee-jerking left wing-nut liberals. If it weren't for jblack's
initial immaturity and his complaints to politburo, the
deanonymizing of motd which got started by our good 'ol
conservative friend jrleek, would not have happened in the
first place. Jblack is like this little kid harrassing
bullies and when he is bullied he runs to his mommy for help.
\_ What's your point? I never claimed jblack's conduct was
examplary. However, nothing he did justified the
phychopathic response, and anonymous threats of harrassment are
clearly beyond the pale. He also, as far as I know, never ran
to anyone for help, or complained. The fact remains that jblack
hater guy clearly overstepped both legal and moral lines. I
have no problem with the general causticness of the motd,
(that's amckee's deal) but I do have a problem with
criminality. The motd was never truly anonymous anyway, even
if you do use scp. The fact is that politburo would rather
enact an overarching rule than do a little detective work.
-jrleek
\_ So which act was deemed criminal?
\_ http://csua.org/u/dq1
\_ So the bar is pretty low...
\_ Wow, talk about blaming the victim. "He insisted on posting _links_
to a political philosophy I disagree with so I went totally psycho
on him! He *made* me do it!" Sheesh. Ridiculous.
\_ It all depends on how high you believe the stakes are in the
co-called "culture war". Personally, I believe that the stakes
couldn't be higher. I believe that the group of radical
Christians trying to overtake America will stop at nothing to
build a fascist theocracy where a guy like me will end up dead
just for being an athiest scientist who reads the wrong books.
The radical Christian enemy is clearly willing to die for their
dark vision of America, and so am I. Seen in that light, a few
insults and even threats on the motd just aren't a big deal.
I am not "jblack hater guy", but I will not be suprised at all
if in 10 years, I'm looking over a barricade at someone just like
jblack, both fighting to the last. Ideas matter. Political
philosophy *always* contains the threat of violence ultimately.
\_ And THIS is why I love the motd. -jrleek
\_ Whoa. This is probably just a crazy troll, but you really
need to read up on Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and
nonviolent resistance. Violence is not inevitable. Don't
go the way of Stalinist idiots like International ANSWER,
please.
\_ Ok, speaking of Stalin, what exactly do you think would have
happened if we had not had the power to rain nuclear death
down on the USSR? We'd just form a human chain in Berlin
and sing some songs and they'd back down? How about Saddamn
in 91? What's your pacifist solution there? Or the
Taleban? Pacifism can solve many problems, and can deal
with many types of people, but it is rarely the solution
to the problem of pure evil.
\_ The bitch was asking for it.
\_ I'm investing in tin futures. Where are all these evil
theocrats running around dying for their cause killing
atheist scientists?
\_ You have to read between the lines a bit, but I believe
this is the ultimate goal of righwing preachers like
Dobson and Falwell--they just don't talk like that yet
because they're in stealth mode and because they think
they can take over "democratically" using the GOP.
Their real chance is going to come after the Peak Oil
crash. At that point, society will face some very hard
choices, and we will have to either invest in science
and technology very intensly to get ourselves out, or fall
into another dark ages, which the Christian fascists will
be quick to advocate. That is the scenario where they'll
end up trying to take power through violence.
\_ This is brilliant! You have actually managed to troll
a discussion about how to make the motd a worth while
and non-hostile, yet anonymous place *and* slipped in
a peak oil reference as well. Your troll-fu has
exceeded all previous known bounds of trollery.
\_ How much would it disturb you to discover that I
believe everything I wrote?
\_ Not at all. But then I've read The True Believer.
\_ I've seen Serentity, how close is that?
\_ I agree with him. It's no secret that fundie
power nuts like Falwell and Dobson fantasize of
a Christian Taliban, a whole country where everyone
is a Christian drone while they live lives of
luxury and limitless power.
\_ Falwell was at the last politburo meeting though
so I dunno. -mrauser
\_ So they have power fantasies? So what? That
means we should turn the motd into a pit? I'm
so going to buy tin futures. Are you also of
the opinion that this has something to do with
Peak Oil? And how does Elvis, Area 51 and
the Bigfoot/Dolphin conspiracy play into this?
\_ Don't you mean aluminum?
\_ Although, I have to admit, using a non-anonimizer to catch the
anonymous motd censor would be really great. -jrleek |
| 11/23 |
|
| csua.org/u/dq1 -> csua.com/Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd/?page=4#39902 The CSUA politburo should do whatever the active CSUA members (ie 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. 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. 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 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". 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. If anonymity had been guaranteed, at least THAT wouldn't have happened. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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"? it certainly seems like i should not even be allowed to advertise my evil motd in the official sleaze free zone. Currently things go on in csua and we don't know anything about it until decisions are already made. Please make the donation and financing information public. It seems in bad taste to print amounts, unless a donation is particularly large and merits special appreciation. That can be done in other ways, however, such as including some- thing like, "Donations from these members were particularly generous, and deserve extra appreciation." In the future there will be a mechanism to more easily see the status of csua finances. In regard to disclosing the names of donors, I'm not sure that will be the policy, but I think we can disclose the amounts of each donation (along with all the other money allocations). mrauser: so what is the rationale to have donation be anon by default but have the motd entries be non-anon. Seems like an excellent fundraiser-- provided you don't make any actual guarantees of letting someone's opinion matter more. After all, isn't this how the US congress and senate work? When there are monitary things involved, I would rather err on the side of anonimity. I wouldn't want a "who's donation is bigger" war, and there is no need at all for the public to know WHO donated. Its not meant to be a blame game or a "I've donated so my opinion matters" situation. As for reasons why the motd would be non anonymous, read the minutes, but we wish to discern who posts overt threats on our motd. how about chowing all the binaries in /csua/bin lest somebody try to throw his weight around because they installed COOL SOFTWARE on sloda? maybe we should make it illegal to keep WALL WARRIOR stats in case new users should fall under the pernicious influence of top WALL WARRIORS. maybe they will SELL THEIR VOTES in return for ANCIENT WALL WARRIOR SECRETS. The fact that Politburo has had to make the decision to put a system in place to keep a log is not a symptom of a "totalitarian regime," but rather a forum where people's blatant disrespect for each other caused a problem that had to be addressed. You will still have your anonymity so you can troll away at each other, but root will finally have the ability to look at a private log IF AND WHEN the need arises to take care of issues that get out of hand. No one will be monitoring the log, lording over you with the wiggling finger. But finally, those anonymous cowards who use unconventional motd posting means to threaten others will have to check themselves knowing that if they make a real threat and someone complains, that there will be judgment on their not-so-anonymous self. The only people complaining about root having logs are those who are the people doing the threatening and are worried that they cannot continue to do so anonymously. Get a life, grow up, and be civil to each other (insult each other all you want, we don't care. I'm rather uncomfortable knowing that we are giving power to tantrumy admins without any real limitations or clear standards of application. Honestly, don't our stewards have more important things to do than chase after lackwit trolls? What the cowards who like censorship fail to understand is how many of the trolls have the personality that tends to tell people to go fuck themselves straight to their face. Overall, I don't think the level of debate is really that much lower here than at the national level anyway. Don't forget we recently had the Vice President of the United States tell a senator to go fuck himself, on record, in the senate. If you're going to get ballistic when someone posts a random link you deserve what you get. I see the problem being with people who instead of saying "fuck you" (which is just stupid), make threats to life, limb, reputation, etc. At that point there needs to be recourse, otherwise the CSUA is just providing a means to attempt to ruin another person with no way for the victim to even know who is doing it much less have a chance of stopping it. That is harassment at a minimum and shouldn't be tolerated. This comes back to the question raised several weeks ago about fresh blood on the motd. Why would any new person want to step into such an environment? And why can't we have an environment better than the rest of the net or the Senate floor, or where ever? Just because another place sucks is no reason we have to emulate that. We were thinking that it really wasn't a constructive thing for people to be abusing the anonimity to threaten others. This is absolutely not intended to be a "politburo intends to be the thought police" system. The logs will also be root-only accessible and we're toying with putting in a system such that you need two members of root to access them. Is there a binding definition of "harassment" from any authority that governs the CSUA? Just because they didn't file some sort of 'official' complaint with politburo, it is ok they left after enough abuse? Why does someone have to be beaten with a bat for it to matter? We must chase unto the hundreds, the thousands, the hundreds of thousands. We don't want to be in trouble with libel, slander, threats, etc. the people whoa re being attacked are not complaining about it, it's not really a problem! we are sorta sanctioning this simply by keeping it there and not responding to these kind of threats" I read this to mean Politburo (4 out of 5) got freaked out about the GUN DUEL references, even though it was a troll. entry=39902 I suppose it's good they haven't heard about GUN DUEL yet ... If it was jblack hater being a weenie, and jblack complaining, that's one thing, but I don't seem to recall either of the parties involved in GUN DUEL raising a stink. " \_ So the people who are being attacked are not complaining. Just because they didn't file an official complaint and fill out some paper work, you think it's ok they're not her... |