🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jun25.213406.18977@cis.ohio-state.edu> jrm@stegosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (John R. Mudd) writes:
>In article <1991Jun25.154257.7452@m.cs.uiuc.edu> jjones@uiuc.edu writes:
>> Here's where the questions arise.  Would it have been better if he have sent 
>>me email to stop doing this rather than suspending my account?  Should I have
>>been using the network facilities at all?
>
>Please ask yourself what would have had a greater effect--getting email
>asking you to cease and desist, or having to go talk to someone about
>your actions?  I'll argue that in nine cases out of ten, the latter has
>more effect.

	John's original posting stated that he restarted his script
several(?)  times after it "died".  He seemed to be uncertain whether or not
it had actually died or it had been killed.  If his administrator did in
fact kill it, then it would have also have been appropriate at that time to
inform John via email that such activities were inappropriate.  Now, if John
had continued his activities after being warned that would have been a
different situation and would have obviously warranted a face to face
meeting.

	At the worst, the way this situation could be interpreted is that
you are allowed N mistakes, but you aren't told when you done something wrong
and when you reach N you get nailed to the wall.  If so, I don't think it is
fair to the user, nor do I think it is an efficient use of the sys admin's
time.  By not sending John mail, his sys admin ended up having to deal with
administrator's at other sites and have a face to face meeting with John.

				Bill Bogstad