29-Mar-2024 14:33 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
[Motd] ANN abuseANN.lu
Posted on 13-Apr-2001 10:23 GMT by Christian Kemp29 comments
View flat
View list
As you might have noticed, messages of questionable content have been posted on ANN under fictious names, Fleecy's name, as well as my own name. In the latest case, the border between harmless joke and abuse/slander has clearly been crossed, and I have invoked abuse procedures. The ISP of the offending poster has been contacted, and I'm hoping they will take appropriate measures. Any future postings that fall under the same category (abuse/slander and/or impersonating some other person) will also yield the same reaction: removal of the offending posting without any further comment, contacting of the ISP, and if everything else fails, legal action. This clearly cannot continue.
List of all comments to this article
Sorted by date, most recent at bottom
Comment 1m0ns00n12-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 2Darrin12-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 3rdrumloa12-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 4Dave12-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 5Christian Kemp12-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 6Budda12-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 7skal12-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 8chunky12-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 9Christian Kemp13-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 10Darrin13-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 11Darrin13-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 12Tinman13-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 13redrumloa13-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 14redrumloa13-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 15Anonymous13-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 16Cockroach13-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 17Hagge13-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 18John Block13-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 19chunky13-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 20maybe_chunky_maybe_not13-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
ANN abuse : Comment 21 of 29ANN.lu
Posted by Darrin on 14-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 20 (maybe_chunky_maybe_not):
>>My point is that you're not entitled to know this either way. Sure, if I really want to be taken seriously I would have better luck if I remain consistent and post under a consistent nickname, but that's my choice, not anyone else's, except Christian Kemp's, because it's CK's board.<<
As you may have read in CK's comment above, the "prefered" manner of posting on his group IS to use an identifier of either a name or nickname. Nobody is going to force you to do it, it's just polite. Why else do we shake hands and give our names when introduced to strangers for the first time?
>>You wrote "there is no excuse (apart from memory lapse) to post anonymously" and I say that using a nickname IS anonymous, expecially on a board that does not require a login account to post. <<
I agree that a log-in would be a nice option, but some people dislike the idea of log-ins because they feel that this is an invasion of their privacy. I guess what we have are three classes of anonymous - class one uses unique nickname to establish a cyber-identity, others (like yourself) use a variety of nicknames to provide a link to previous remarks on a linked theme, and finally others just use "anonymous" or uses someone's identity to cause discontent. It's this third group that's the problem especially when the use this "mask" for personal attacks and to spread lies.
>>So now you know the majority of ANN posters views? If you're right, then it's a lucky guess, but you don't actually "know". <<
Unfortunately I don't and perhaps CK could have a poll on this issue. My statement was based on my observations on actual postings. I would estimate that 75% of the posters can be "uniquely identified" and therefore make up a "majority" of the posters and thus I can deduce that the "majority" agree with this view :)
>>My point is that you're not entitled to know this either way. Sure, if I really want to be taken seriously I would have better luck if I remain consistent and post under a consistent nickname, but that's my choice, not anyone else's, except Christian Kemp's, because it's CK's board. <<
I agree again except where information is false. I believe everyone has the right to know their accuser, and if the accuser isn't prepared to stand in the light then he should keep his gob shut.
>>Well of course, but that's the perrogative of the poster and ultimately the owner of the board, not the readers. A reader might think a poster is chickenshit regardless. What a reader thinks is of no concern to the poster. <<
It's still not polite though. The poster MUST care what the reader thinks otherwise he wouldn't bother to post in the first place.
>>Basically, I'm saying that there are many people who are too sensitive. When they are offended, they want to institute rules to prevent someone from offending them. When that happens, ideas are repressed. I think we agree here.
Yep, we agree :) But I also think that people have a right to be sensitive to false and personal attacks. I like to think I have a thick skin, but attack my honour and my skin turns green and my shirt splits :)
>>Posting under someone's real name is fraudulent. Posting under someone's official nickname, a name that replaces the real name, is also fraudulent. But without a login system, how would you know either way? <<
Agreed again and this is why the abuse hurts so much. The posting system on ANN is a "honour" systems and relies on TRUST. If everyone in the world placed personal honour first abd trusted everyone then the planet would be a nicer place. The reason we have armies is because there are some evil little bastards out there that just love to cause trouble and need to be beaten with a large stick.
>>Finally, posting anonymously, by itself, is cautious, not spineless. Posting slanderous or fraudulent drek is spineless. It's this black-and-white judgemental opinion crap ("it's either this way or that way and there's no in-between") I object to. But, that's my problem if I object. Judge away. <<
In your case (and many others) I agree (again). In retrospect I also feel that I may have directed that spineless remark against you unfairly and unjustly. Re-read the earlier part of this post and understand that the "spinless" ones are the malicious third group I mentioned and not the first or second. Sorry about that :)
Jump...
TopPrevious commentNext commentbottom
List of all comments to this article (continued)
Comment 223seas14-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 23redrumloa14-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 24Anonymous14-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 25Darrin14-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 26Colin Wilson14-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 27Christer Jansson16-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 28Christer Jansson16-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 29XybeX17-Apr-2001 22:00 GMT
Back to Top