🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 20 Apr 1994 15:11:16 SAT One of the SCORPIONS said:
>didnt face the problem by banning bad users , he escaped by banning the whole
>node. he even escaped from his promises. I DONT GIVE A PAZOKA !!!

Oh, it would have been *SO* much easier to simply ban the whole node the
first  time,  and leave  it  banned.  However,  it wasn't  that  simple.

Let's see..  A few  years ago,  we had  a large  amount of  trouble with
users from  SAUPM00. We  reacted by simply  &locking the  problem users,
until  the node  adminstrator (Moawiya  Taj) at  SAUPM00 requested  that
access be turned off (on Jan 22, 1992).

That node  administrator left, and  Iyad Bukhari  took over the  job. He
requested that  I re-allow access  (June 23, 1992),  and I did.  We then
started  having more  trouble. We  started &locking  the problem  users.
This didn't help.

What a  lot of  people don't  know is  that when  I was  under a  lot of
pressure to  ban the entire node,  I did NOT  do so. Instead, on  Oct 9,
1993,  I put  up a  special SAUPM00-only  logmsg, which  said basically:
"The following  users have been banned  from RELAY. When this  list gets
to be  15 users long, your  node's access will be  terminated.". It then
listed the userids, nicknames, and reasons for being banned.

If a  SAUPM00 user asked  me about this  policy, I *TOLD*  them DIRECTLY
that what they  should do to prevent  being banned is to get  a group of
users together  and go  have a talk  with all the  locked users.  I also
suggested  that they  take  along blunt  instruments  to inflict  bodily
damage upon  the repeat offenders. I  spent about a *MONTH*  telling the
users there that they need to police themselves, and told them how to do
it.

This  didn't  help  either.  RELAY   access  to  the  node  was  finally
terminated  (Dec 6,  1993) on  Iyad  Bukhari's direct  request. Also,  I
spent over  a month stalling  and *refusing*  to turn off  access, while
Iyad kept requesting me to do so (his  3rd or 4th request was on Nov 23,
1993).

The  users  from  SAUPM00  had  a *lot*  of  chances,  and  *plenty*  of
warnings.  It isn't  *MY* fault  that SAUPM00  isn't allowed  access any
more - I tried many times to stop it from happening.

I've appended  the SAUPM00 LOGMSG that  *every* user from that  node was
sent *every* time they got on RELAY.

/Valdis

*** PLEASE READ CAREFULLY

We have had a *LARGE* number of problems with complaints
about users from your node (SAUPM00). Please note that
bothering or harassing other users is *NOT* permitted.
This includes *ANY* messaging to people who have told you
to leave them alone.  This includes *ANY* messages that
other users have in the past found offensive (in other
words, if you've asked a user a question and they were offended,
you have NO right to ask a second user the same question).

It is *strongly* suggested that you do not let anybody else use
your userid, so that you don't get blamed for things other
people do.

Effective *immediately*, any complaints about a SAUPM00 user
will result in the following:

1) The SAUPM00 user will lose access to RELAY.

2) The SAUPM00 user will be listed at the bottom of this notice.

3) If there accumulate 15 users on this list, *ALL* RELAY access for
*ALL* users at SAUPM00 *WILL* *BE* *REMOVED*.

Current list:  (5 users)
userid  node     nick    offense
STUDA36@SAUPM00 (HaHo) - harassing a relay op
STUACCA@SAUPM00 (Marlboro) Repeated harassing of users, 'picture' execs.
STUCBA2@SAUPM00 (Sad)    Offensive language.
STUAC6F@SAUPM00 (Classic) Incorrect /register, warned several times
STUD805@SAUPM00 (BigBoss) Offensive language and racial slurs