Re: anonymity in moos

• Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 09:30:18 PDT
• From:
  tom@mvision.com (Tom Ritchford)
• Reply-To:
  tom@mvision.com
• In-Reply-To: <199604132221.SAA22821@hunny.INS.CWRU.Edu> (sir@po.cwru.edu)

"Seth I. Rich" <sir@po.cwru.edu> writes:

>If you've got abusive users, DEAL WITH THEM.
>One really sucky trend on MOOs these days is to look at abusive users and say, 
>"Gee, we've got abusive users.  Perhaps I should reconsider redefining all my
>rules and providing a mechanism by which we could resolve the issues raised..."
>when the correct (IMO) thing to do is go "Oh, you're an asshole?  Ok, bye." and
>promptly @toad the jackass.

Yes; we avoided doing this at Id... and we were wrong.
I was hoping people would work it out.  But no... and
judicious @toading of a couple of people fixed it!

I'd strongly vote AGAINST readable email addresses for this reason.

    /t

Tom Ritchford     tom@mvision.com, tom@weirdos.com

Verge's "Little Idiot" -- Music for the mentally peculiar.
1-800-WEIRDOS           http://www.fly.net/~verge

• Re: anonymity in moos
• From: Jeff Watkins <jwatkins@primuscorp.com>

• Re: anonymity in moos
• From: "Seth I. Rich" <sir@po.cwru.edu>

• Prev: Re: anonymity in moos
• Next: ANSI
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows