Beating a Dead Horse
			   A stupid story
			   In 1030+ Acts

			Last Updated: 5/26/95

Players:
	James Keegan, Jr. -- Beater of a Dead Horse
	Mark Cochran -- Keeganite, Beater of a Dead Horse
	Keith Cochran -- Keeganite, Beater of a Dead Horse
	Andrew Burt -- admin of Nyx, target of Keeganite harassment
	1000s of Nyx Users -- opposed to Keegan, victims of his harassment

	[If you don't know what Nyx is (free public access to the Net, funded
	by voluntary donations), please read the other articles in this info
	menu.  Please read them before you consider deciding that the
	Keeganites have anything valid to say (hint: they don't).  They
	help prove my assertion that the Keeganites' whining is just
	sour grapes.]

Welcome to aburt's diary of Beating a Dead Horse.  This is in response to the
harassment campaign being waged by incessant posting (to many inappropriate
groups) that the Dead Horse Beaters are waging since having lost their
Nyx accounts (for grossly improper behavior).

I've decided to create this entry in the Nyx info menu so that others who
might care what my side of it is could read it here, rather than me posting
it in reply to every one of the (literally) hundreds/thousands of messages
the Keeganites post bashing me.  Instead, I'll just post an occasional
pointer to this in the groups in which they're currently slamming me.

I'm sure they'll continue to post (I mean, hey, they stated they would
"never" stop and it's raged on for months already), so I only ask that
you remember to take what they say with a grain of salt.  Or two.  Or 1030.

But, before we start, a call for peace.

Call for peace:  If you agree with what I've done, fine, thanks, but
please don't post any more about it.  Let them rant until the cow jumps
over the moon; if they see that nobody cares maybe they'll go away; and
if they don't, well, all the easier to killfile the thread if they're
the only ones posting.  I have asked this many times, and many people have
agreed to drop it.

At the very least, if you just can't help yourself from posting, PLEASE
remove inappropriate groups (like nyx.misc, talk.abortion).  ESPECIALLY
nyx.misc; Nyx users have voted unanimously they don't want to hear about it
there any longer.

Anyway, Once Upon a Time, I saw this...

In <3ota2c$o1o@nyx10.cs.du.edu> mhughes@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Mark Hughes) writes:
>In article <3os8k2$sg2@nyx10.cs.du.edu>,
>Stein Gjoen  wrote:
>>mhughes@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Mark Hughes) wrote:
>I understand that the Constitutional guarantee of free speech limits
>government actions not nyx actions, but the Constitutional limit is based
>on a valuable idea -- one that Andrew has repeatedly returned to and
>relied on for setting nyx policy.  I don't think one can dismiss the value
>of free speech by saying it is protected by the Constitution and the
>Constitution doesn't apply to the net, therefore we don't need to worry
>about free speech.  (Stein, just so we are clear, I don't think this is
>what you are saying) There is clearly a nyx philosphy and free speech is
>part of it. 

I agree wholeheartedly.  I even allowed Mark to rant on for two months,
just to demonstrate that it's not dissent that I oppose, but harassment.
There is a line across which dissent becomes harassment, esp. in these
cases:
	1)  The dissenter says they will *never* stop until the other party
	    gives in;
	2)  The dissent consists of an immense volume of messages, primarily
	    originating from the dissenter (and small cohort), to the
	    extent of over a thousand postings in two months (84% of all
	    traffic in the group);
	3)  The dissent consists of the same arguments posted repeatedly,
	    the "beating a dead horse" concept, constantly ignoring the
	    defenses posed to them already;
	4)  The dissent consists of other unfriendly behavior such as
	    intentional misquotes, forged articles, thinly veiled threats
	    against people and systems, etc.;
	5)  The dissenter makes unsubstantiated claims and refuses to
	    back up those claims -- e.g. Mark saying he had "vast" support
	    among Nyx users, but not ONE validated Nyx user supported him
	    when I called for ANYBODY to post that they agreed with what
	    he was doing;
	6)  The dissent is targeted toward a local newsgroup of which the
	    posters are not members (nyx.misc), and carried out in other
	    non-relevant groups (talk.abortion); including when the posters
	    are specifically and clearly told to cease posting by other
	    admins, and they continue -- netcom told the three Keegan Klowns
	    to stop posting from netcom to nyx.misc, and all three continued
	    to do it after that;
	7)  And (weakest, but still relevant), when the arguments consist
	    of deliberate (or at least obviously clueless) twists of words
	    and strange leaps of logic.  (E.g., his unique definition of
	    "forgery", or that I am a horrible evil person for "posting
	    private mail", when in fact I only did that in one instance,
	    when it contained a thinly veiled threat from Mark, just so
	    that the world would see the threat in case it was carried out.)

I hope that demonstrates to those who are new to the discussion that this
is as far from a case of Fascist Sysadmin Runs Amok as we can get.  I'm
*extremely* tolerant of free speech issues, to the point that these jokers
had to push just to see how far I'd go.  They found out, and now are
still whining about it.

In fact, this entire tirade revolves around no more and no less than
whether I lived up to my own guidelines.  I think the facts demonstrate
that I did, even exercising what some have called "extreme patience".
But, even if (big IF) not, who the hell really cares?  I guess I should
be honored that they feel me, Nyx,  and my free speech philosophy are
so important to them and the world that they have to rage on about how
awful a person I am... but, hey, even *I* don't have that big an ego.
(But, thanks guys, realizing how important I am to you gives me such a 
warm fuzzy feeling.)  Anyway, yeah, the whole thing is about nothing
more than whether I stood up for freedom of speech to the extent I
said I would (I did).  I'm truly sorry they've had to waste everyone
else's time on this, and I have and will continue to do what I can to
restore peace (though without caving in to net.terrorism).

They have repeatedly said their goal is the restoration of Keegan's account,
but, given their tactics, and that he was wrong in the first place, that
will NEVER happen.  Period.  These clowns are each persona non grata on Nyx.

Anyway, for those new to the "spewage", here's a synopsis of what
led to this Dead Horse Beating:

Background:

I'm Andrew Burt, a professor in the math/comp.sci. dept. at the University
of Denver; one of my hobbies is operating a public access internet site,
Nyx (nyx.cs.du.edu).  There is no cost to use Nyx (voluntary donations
are our support).  Among our 10,000 mostly well-behaved users we have
had three, James Keegan, Keith Cochran, and Mark Cochran (brothers),
who have engaged in a divisive campaign of harassment against me as
admin and our entire user population.  They have, partly as a result, all had
their accounts revoked within the last six months or so -- first K. Cochran
voluntarily left rather than defend his tactics of harassment in another
newsgroup, then Keegan had his revoked for violating the terms of a
"cease fire" I had brokered/imposed between him and another user, the agreed
upon penalty for breaking that cease fire being loss of both accounts,
and then M. Cochran lost his account for two months of incessant
harassment in what I assume is vengeance for the other two losing theirs.

I should add that this is not an issue regarding opinions -- e.g., this
entire matter is not based on a difference of opinion regarding some
controversial topic like abortion, etc. -- I don't know what their
opinions are on any such matters, that has never come into play; we've
come to arguments over their tactics alone.  I call it harassment (and
think I've allowed far more than nearly any other admin I've ever met)
and they call it free speech.  I will append a copy of our free speech
policies on Nyx so you can see that they are among the most liberal of
any site, and fall just short of "anything goes" -- even so, these three
have managed to exceed these limits.  Briefly, Nyx's policy regarding
free speech is "defend or apologize", except for clear-cut cases of
unacceptable behavior; it is my opinion, and that of every Nyx user who
has voiced an opinion, and of almost all Net users who've spoken about
it, that these guys have crossed the line.

[Just to be more precise, they still have logins (kcochran, keegan,
mcochran) but they are "preview" users that cannot read or send mail,
cannot post, can do nothing except browse; there is no limit on who
can have one of these since they have no privileges at all.  Only
"validated" Nyx users can do anything, and these three have all had
their validations revoked for their abuses.]

To explore the depth of the problem regarding the postings to nyx.*,
here is a quote from Mark Cochran sent to me in email (though he says
he's said this publicly "many times" so I see no harm in quoting it here).

I said I would not restore Keegan's account (for reasons explained
below).  I said:
	AB1> The issue now is what YOU are
	AB1> doing, since I am making it damn clear that I'm not doing anything
	AB1> different, no matter what you say or do.)

He replied, in reference to his harassment tactics:
	MC1> And I wish to make it "damn clear" that I am not doing anything
	MC1> differently, until and unless your stance on forgery is reversed.

I replied back, asking for a clarification on the harassment issue:
	AB2> This sounds like a threat of continued harassment since I've stated
	AB2> it in no uncertain terms that I will not reverse my stance on libel
	AB2> (what you call "forgery").
 
He clarified that yes, he wasn't going to ever give up:
	MC2> And you make identical threats to me, since I've stated it in no
	MC2> uncertain terms that I will not reverse my stance on your poor
	MC2> decision.

In other words, he (and his chums) plan to continue their harassment until
I give in (which isn't happening, since I feel I'm right, and since I
don't give in to bullies in any case).

So, to date, within the last two months [as of 5/7/95] or so (since I
revoked Keegan's account), Keegan and the two Cochran's have amassed
these statistics:

Of 1375 (1229 postings by humans) postings to nyx.misc (our general
purpose newsgroup)

	452 have been from Keegan (240), K. Cochran (62) and M. Cochran (150)
		[plus 578 in response to these]

All told, these 1030 articles, of 1229, represent 84% of all nyx.misc
traffic, and a five-fold increase in traffic.  Nyx has many novices who
aren't aware of killfiles, or use newsreaders lacking that feature, so
the argument that users should just ignore them is not feasible; users
ARE subjected to their postings, and they know it.

This is over a period of TWO MONTHS.  (Nyx users have said I've exhibited
amazing patience in this; but I don't lightly act on revoking a user's
account).  I would like to point out that even though this represents
three user account revocations inside six months, these are the ONLY three
users to lose their accounts for harassment incidents in the entire six
years of Nyx's operation, during which we've seen over 100,000 users
create accounts.  So this is an extremely rare event, which (I hope)
implies that I don't just do this on a whim or without extremely good
reason.  (I don't even know these three people, have never met them,
don't know what their opinions are, etc.  All I know is that they are
harassing me and my system and have said outright they will not stop.)

Further, some or all three have been accused, repeatedly, of:

	- Forging entire news articles
	- Altering the quotes attributed to users to make them say
	  the opposite of what was originally said
	- Harassing other newsgroups with similar tactics
	- Making false claims about what other people said
	- Thinly veiled threats against people or systems

Before I took this most recent action of disabling Mark's account, I
told him to "put up or shut up" since he said he knew that a "vast"
number of validated Nyx users shared his views -- yet *none* have come
to his defense.  Given that we have an extremely liberal free speech
policy, and that I've only shut people off after *months* of harassment,
one posting or email of support would hardly be any risk.  Yet nobody
agrees with him.  He has no support except among his close allies, all
of whom act in a similar hostile manner.

(He claimed his supporters had no other net accounts to go to, and
couldn't afford to lose their (free) Nyx accounts.  To that, I say
	1) They must not really agree with him very much; or
	2) They must not be willing to stand up for what they believe in; or
	3) They don't exist.
Note that (3) actually *is* commensurate with his statement they have no
other accounts -- people who don't exist don't have other accounts! :-)
I did check the /var/log/syslog file that records who sends mail to whom,
and didn't see any traffic to him from Nyx users other than from those who had
posted in opposition.  So I'm confident when I call this one a bald-faced lie.)

At this point you're probably wondering what started all this.  Here's
a brief chronology of events:

- Keegan is widely known for his inflammatory posting techniques, a
  practice he seems proud of.
- Keegan has been accused of altering text attributions and "creative
  editing" to make it appear other users said things they did not.
- Another Nyx user, Steven Pordon, begins tangling with Keegan in
  talk.abortion and alt.flame; Keegan fakes quotes of Pordon, Pordon
  fakes Keegan quotes back.
- Keegan demands Pordon apologize for "forging".
- Problem: Pordon's admitted action (altering the words attributed to K)
  is not "forgery".  "Libel" more likely.  Pordon made no effort to hide
  his alterations, even bragging about them and pointing them out.  He
  could well have argued that it was parody since they were apparently
  things Keegan would never be likely to say (the humorous opposite).
- I tell K this, and that libel is not covered by the Nyx guidelines
  but that it's a "real world" legal matter between him and P, but that
  I suggest both of them just agree to disagree and stop.
- K and P bicker voluminously about it, K harassing me with forwards
  and demands to do something about P.  I reiterate it is his problem,
  that both are to blame, and that if K *really* feels he's being harmed
  by this nonsense, to take P to court or else just drop it; he blows this off
  and keeps harassing me to do something about it.
- So I tell K & P to BOTH knock it off, that it's up to him to pursue
  in court if he feels strongly, or to leave it alone; K says "thanks
  for the defusing effect" and admits he has a hard time letting things go.
- But K & P keep at it.
- After a while, at K's INSISTENCE I do something, I tell both K and P
  to stop.  That I feel both are at fault for not dropping it nor for
  taking any real steps toward trying to solve the underlying problems.
- I tell K and P if they do not stop, I will revoke BOTH accounts.
- P says he will stop, and does.  (K even admits to this day that P stopped.)
- K does not disagree or resist this in any way.  Given that he replies to
  almost every post he's mentioned in, I think I'm correct in assuming that
  since he isn't complaining publicly or privately about my imposed
  settlement terms that he is accepting them.  In fact, he keeps quiet
  about it for a month, further proof that he had no disagreement with
  the terms.
- K later starts up again, posting about P's "forgery"; thus invoking my
  forewarned loss of account.  After months of this I wasn't in the mood
  for more childish games so I swiftly revoked both accounts (feeling somewhat
  sorry for P since he'd been quiet, but, that's what I said I'd do).
- I do offer K and P their accounts back if both will reaffirm their commitment
  to abide by Nyx account guidelines, which specifically include following
  netiquette (as well as stopping an activity when the admin says stop).
- P agrees immediately.
- K says he will not agree unless everyone else on Nyx also re-agrees.
- This is a false argument, as other users have not lost their account,
  and only those users who have lost accounts are being asked to reaffirm this.
- At this point K. Cochran (who'd given up his account months ago voluntarily
  by refusing to respond to complaints lodged against him, per the terms
  of our policies -- in specific, he said he would never again defend himself,
  and that he "expected" me to follow up on my stated policy and remove
  his account; I did) and his brother Mark, plus Keegan from his other
  accounts, begin their campaign of harassment against me for my actions.
- Their postings are almost always of the "beating a dead horse" variety,
  repeating the same issues over and over (and over and over and over).
  I played for a while, defending myself again and again, until I finally
  said I wouldn't repeat my defense, I'd said it all enough times and
  they weren't bringing up anything new.
- They continued posting their Dead Horse arguments.
- I received numerous complaints from Nyx users who found it disruptive.
- It also has taken a large amount of my time, just reading and replying
  to readers new to the threads about what was going on -- and time is
  an important issue for me since I only have a few hours a week to spend
  working on Nyx (my real jobs of teaching, research, admin'ing the
  department network, and consulting taking up nearly all my time).  Thus
  they were/are having a genuinely disruptive effect on Nyx itself by
  taking away my time (I've done nearly nothing on Nyx except this for
  two months now).  I feel the need to defend myself sufficient so they don't
  look like they're correct just based on sheer volume and repetitiveness
  of their arguments.

They've made many, many, many other allegations, all of which are spurious.
(Either totally false, misstated, grossly overstated, and so on.)  Plus they
raise some non-issues in an effort to confuse.  I suggest you don't take
what they say very seriously, it's just sour grapes on their part.  But
here are some random samples:

*** Mark gripes that I'm a horrible evil person because I post private email.
Considering I only did that *once*, when it contained a thinly veiled threat
from Mark Cochran, and I wanted to defuse the threat by making it public, I
hardly think I qualify.  I rarely post private email, very rarely.  I usually
respect the privacy of the sender, and consider it generally inconsiderate
to republish except in certain circumstances.  However, it *is* the recipients
right to do with the letter as they please; I advise people if they
don't want it repeated, don't say it.

*** Also, be wary of those who post in support of them.  While I don't doubt
that *some* of the postings come for real human beings distinct from Keegan
and the two Cochrans, it is widely rumored, and in fact I do have proof,
that they use accounts in alternate names to "pump up" the number of people
who apparently agree with them.  I, personally, only know of three distinct
people (JK, MC, KC), since they were validated users on Nyx, and validation
means submitting proof of identity (*notarized* form or pre-printed personal
check).  There have been others who *might* be real, but not all Internet
Service Providers check these things -- as long as you pay, they don't care.
(Nyx doesn't take that attitude since there's no charge; we have to have
*some* way of preventing abuse, so we check IDs.  Those who don't want a
public persona can have an anonNNNN account.  This policy works wonderfully.)
AOL, for example, apparently lets anyone post with a freebie "starter" account,
under any name they want.  (I do in fact have proof of this, but prefer
not to make it public since it was sent to me as confidential email;
if you don't want to believe me on this one point, fine, but the rest of
the facts amply prove my point anyway, this is just icing on the cake.)

*** Just to demonstrate that Nyx is far more tolerant than most sites,
I wrote to the admins of the sites they were spamming nyx.misc from
remotely, after they were evicted.  Each site told them to stop.  (I
did say anyone in the world was invited to post to one group,
nyx.policy, should anyone actually care.  Of course, the Keegan Klowns
have flooded that, but, who cares.)  Nyx users subsequently voted
(unanimously) to prevent external postings to nyx.misc.  Again, not a
single Nyx user defending their tactics.

*** The Keeganites claim I was unfair in asking their admins to tell
them to stop posting to nyx.misc, and not others who posted in favor of
what I did.  What they don't say is that I asked many people as
individuals to stop, and they said they would, so no need to bother
their admins.  I only asked admins to silence them when they wouldn't
quit of their own accord.  Just another example of how they twist words
to imply what they want, not the truth.  I mean, if you think they're
being harassing, or otherwise violating netiquette, and have asked them
to stop, and they've refused, you might ask their admin too.)
Yes, this includes the "Truland incident".

***  Mark posted,
	The basic question, I think,
	is "does the sysadmin of a public system have any right to tell users
	what subjects may or may not be discussed". 
No, but this is just a dodge, meant to obscure the issue.  I let them
rage on for months; if I wanted to prevent dissent, I would have acted
immediately.  It's not *what* they said, it's *how* they said it --
repetitively, and incessantly.  See statistics above.  If any other
thread had gone on like this in nyx.misc, and when the participants
refused to cool it after it was obvious they were beating the dead
horse, and I'd received as many complaints about it from Nyx users,
I'd take the same action.  So would nearly any other admin (usually sooner);
as, in fact, they did, when I brought this to their attention.

*** That I justified a March posting with a February letter.  No, that (as
it said) was just a sample, I didn't have the original.  I'd already
told them in February to cease-fire, quick acting like children, and
threatened to pull both their plugs.

*** That DU should care about this.  I doubt it.  They are nearly 100%
disentangled from Nyx now, supplying only a tabletop to sit the machines
on and electricity.  Nyx is self-supporting and pays for all other services
that aren't donated (T1, phones, equipment, etc.).  Besides, even if they
didn't, historically they've taken a much less liberal attitude than I have
regarding free speech, and would thus almost certainly back me entirely (if
not chide me for being too tolerant).

*** That DU is state funded, thus the 1st amendment should apply.  (a) DU
is private.  (b) The 1st amendment doesn't include harassment, which this
most obviously is.

Well, there were other pot shots they took at me that I defended in the
past, I'm not going to list every one of them here.  Suffice to say I don't
think they've said a single thing about me that is troublesome.  Mostly
they post falsehoods, twists on words, gibberish, etc.

Anyway, I've had enough.  Below is our free speech policy, for your
information.  I believe I have followed it to the 't'.  I believe Nyx is
still one of the most tolerant sites of free speech you'll find on the net.

I think this whole matter speaks for itself, and caution you that if you
get into it you may well find yourself harassed too; however, if they
lose their accounts everywhere they go, maybe that will send them a message.

Regardless, I urge restraint, and sing the common song on the net, "if you
ignore them they'll eventually go away".  Peace.

=======  Nyx free speech policy ======

Hello, this is Prof. Andrew Burt, of the U. of Denver Math/CS dept.,
also known as the system admin of Nyx (nyx.cs.du.edu).

In regards to your note, please accept my apologies at replying with this,
well, form letter.  Let me state up front that if you're not satisfied with
my generic answer to your concern, I'd be happy to elaborate if you ask.
Note that I have read your message, this is not any kind of automatic
reply; I merely felt that I could reply in the most detail with this
document I wrote up because I get many such messages (running a site of
10,000+ users has its downside; I try to keep them educated, but...).
Anyway, problems relating to freedom of speech, censorship, breaches of
netiquette, etc. arise often enough that I've found that I can solve the
problems faster and more comprehensively with this approach, rather than
typing in substantially the same information (though usually so much
more tersely and hastily that content gets lost).  So here's my verbose
version, which, hopefully, will cover your concerns.

With that in mind, here is my (Nyx's) policy regarding "content" issues
from Nyx users.

The assumption I make in writing this note is that you've written me
saying "one of your users, J. Smith, has done the following thing, X,
which I [and maybe lots of other people, by implication] find offensive,
please talk to J. Smith [tell them to cease, take away the account, boil
them in oil, etc.].", or something to that effect.

In particular I'm thinking of the following types of cases:

	- User posts highly obnoxious material (e.g., has opinions you
		think nearly every sane person disagrees with, like Nazi
		propaganda)
	- User posts material not appropriate to a newsgroup
		(e.g., way off topic, inappropriate language, flame-baiting)
	- User posts material you consider libelous against yourself
	- User does "Followup-to: misc.test", causing you to get tons of
		auto-replies when you tried to follow up
	- User is (in your opinion) harassing you
	- User floods a newsgroup with garbage posts
	- User publicly posts information you'd rather they didn't
		(e.g., your home address, real name, e-mail you sent them, etc.)
	- User posts blatantly commercial material
	- User posts to a newsgroup you think should be removed
	- User creates a usergroup you don't think should exist
	- User insists on "pushing the envelope" with respect to netiquette
	- User ripped you off in an e-mail transaction selling something
	- Etc.

Though perhaps not exactly what you are asking about, to my mind you were
asking about something similar (or I wouldn't have sent this note).

[Note, in some cases, e.g., a user does something "clearly" illegal (posts
credit card numbers, for example), I take a different, tougher, stand (but you
probably wouldn't get this letter if I thought it was "clearly" illegal).
But, see below for more on what I mean by "clearly" illegal.]

First, a few facts about Nyx...

	- Nyx is a public access site.  Users on Nyx are almost never
		students, faculty, or staff at DU (U. of Denver).  Users
		don't pay for accounts, they're free (we accept donations,
		but don't have a hard sell).  So, we have no direct ties
		to Nyx users -- we can't fire them from DU, kick them out
		of school, etc.  We could, at most, remove their account.
		Fortunately, we've peaceably resolved almost every instance of
		complaint against Nyx users without having to remove accounts.

	- I (Prof. Andrew Burt, from DU's math/comp.sci. dept.) run Nyx
		as a hobby, and have various Nyx users who volunteer time
		to help out.  Thus we don't have a phone number to call for
		support, we don't have an official organization, nobody's
		paid, etc.  So if I've been a little slow to respond, for
		example, this is probably why.

	- To eliminate some problems before they occur, we have an
		X-Disclaimer header in all outgoing news/mail.  It tries to
		summarize in one short sentence that DU doesn't have any
		control over what Nyx user's say.

	- The philosophy of Nyx is that all people should have an opportunity
		for access to the net (which originated as primarily only
		accessible to those fortunate enough to work/etc. somewhere
		that had net access) and at reasonable cost (unlike, say,
		compuserve, prodigy, etc.).  This "diversity" thus includes
		people with many different opinions.

	- Nyx is in the United States, and the US Constitution has a strong
		paragraph protecting freedom of speech.  Though this has
		been restricted by various Supreme Court rulings, for the
		most part, almost "anything goes" as far as being protected
		by law as free speech.

	- As I've examined the law (of course I'm not a lawyer), Nyx
		meets the criteria for "common carrier" status.  This means
		that content issues on Nyx are treated like the telephone
		company would treat them.  (Most BBS's & internet sites do
		_not_ meet this definition, and get treated as more
		restrictive entities, e.g., like newspapers (which have
		editors), bookstores/libraries, etc.  The crucial test for
		common carrier status, as I understand it, is whether the
		alleged carrier is willing to provide service to absolutely
		anyone who asks, or if they reserve the right to refuse service
		to users who meet certain criteria.  Nyx doesn't examine any
		user's "qualifications" to use Nyx.)  By this analogy,
		Nyx deals with content of user messages much like the phone
		company deals with the content of phone messages -- pretty
		much "hands off".  Which isn't to say we ignore problems and
		don't try to help resolve them:  It means we try our best,
		but unless some law is broken, etc., we rarely revoke accounts.
		It does mean, absolutely, that we don't screen outgoing
		messages for acceptability.  Note that even the court
		cases using the "usual" criteria mostly favor the
		newspaper/library/etc.

		In a similar vein, Nyx carries a full newsfeed.  We don't
		restrict what groups are carried (ok, well, we don't carry
		most of the regional ones, but that's for lack of space).
		I don't feel it's my place to decide what groups are acceptable
		for users to see.  There are many groups that carry material
		offensive to people; the problem is that not everyone
		agrees what's offensive -- indeed, I doubt there's any
		single group or viewpoint that everyone would agree is
		offensive.

		Further, some groups carry material of dubious legal nature.
		As much as I personally dislike that, the issue remains
		the same.  Like a phone company, I am not in the business of
		scanning all data for legality, nor preventing its flow when it
		comes to light.  Such problems are netwide anyway, and
		need to be addressed at that level, not site by site.

	- Nyx users do have to have their identity proven before they can
		post or send mail.  The test for identity is fairly stiff:
		Either submitting (1) a notarized form and photocopy of a
		legal ID or (2) a pre-printed cashable, personal check.
		Not perfect, but more stringent than many sites on the net.
		This includes "semi-anonymous" accounts, i.e., usernames of
		the form anon9999 -- these users have proven their real
		identity and we have agreed not to divulge their identity
		except in cases of need to law enforcement, etc.  (Which is
		extremely rare.)  Note that until they are "validated",
		users are in a "preview" mode where they can do almost
		*nothing* -- they can read news (readonly), read some
		Nyx documents, and that's about it.  No posting, no
		email (send OR receive), no irc, telnet, etc.  As I
		usually put it, they can't even blow their own noses.

You can probably already get a sense of what our policy is regarding what
people do from Nyx.  In short, Nyx users are accorded the advantage of
freedom of speech as far as it can be stretched.  I do not practice
censorship.  We've had cases that have tested this stance in the past,
and the consensus of the net (by a huge margin) was that users on the
net should be able to judge for themselves what is trash/annoying/etc.
and what's not.

My position upon receiving a complaint such as yours is to talk to the user
about it, and see if they will voluntarily agree they've done something
wrong and to cease, etc.  I do my best to convince them that it's in their
own best interest to do so.  I usually succeed.  (I've even eked out a public
apology here and there, but that's rare.)

I personally feel that censorship is a horrible thing, and if the price of
freedom of speech is that there's some amount of garbage we have to suffer
for it, it's well worth the price.  (But letting each person decide what's
"garbage" is a benefit in itself -- not everyone agrees with you, or me,
about what's drivel or brilliant.)  We all have the right to not read things;
but only if they're available to us to read/not-read in the first place.
I don't believe in having a sanitized view of the world -- since nobody
will ever agree what needs to be censored, it's better to have it all
uncensored than live with someone else's bias.

Thus, in the case of your concern, my response is this:

	- If you haven't already, express your displeasure to the user
		directly.  Don't assume that mailing to postmaster@site is
		the best thing to do first.  Do that only after you've
		received no satisfaction from the user directly.  I have
		little sympathy for people who whine to the sysadmin when
		they haven't even told the user "to their face" about their
		problem.
	
	- In case you're reading this before you've actually sent me mail,
		but you've reached a dead end with the user, go ahead
		and send me a note clearly explaining the problem.
		I'm aburt@nyx.cs.du.edu.

	- I'll talk to the user about it.  Their version of events may
		not match yours, so I want to hear their side.  I'll
		try to convince them to act in a manner that is best for
		humanity as a whole.  (Many users do things in a selfish
		way, so I try to educate them about the harmful effects of
		that.  I usually use a semi-"golden rule" approach -- what if
		*everybody* did the same thing you did?  Etc.)  I'm getting
		fairly good at mediation. :-)

	- However, it's probably their right to say/do what they're doing.
		Usenet is a unique thing in the world, having no central
		government and generally encouraging users to do what they
		want (certainly not discouraging it).  This is what makes
		it special, and is a thing to be valued, not casually
		destroyed.  It may be better for them to continue (assuming
		they're really selfish and can't be convinced otherwise) than
		to start censoring them about it.

	- If they're doing something "possibly" illegal -- that is, you think
		it is, but it's not something obvious to anyone -- e.g., you
		say they've committed libel, but since I don't know you, or
		them, I can't tell if it's true or not, or damaging, etc.,
		then I have to refer you to the US court system.  Electronic
		messages are subject to the same libel laws as paper messages.

		But, *I* can't be the judge -- a JUDGE has to be the judge.
		Like a phone company, I won't shut off service to someone
		because they used the phone to slander you.  Or like the post
		office, who won't refuse service because someone libeled you
		by mail.  Another example would be if they allegedly posted
		something copyrighted.  I'm not in the position to judge if
		something is copyrighted by someone else or not -- that's for
		the copyright holder to act on.  (But feel free to tell *them*
		about it.  Though it might not hurt to inform the user about
		the problem first, in case it was accidental.)

		If you deliver me evidence that it *is* libel, etc. (such
		as a court judgment, restraining order, etc.) then I will
		be most cooperative in telling or forcing them to cease.

		Allegations of harassment sometimes fall into this category
		(but sometimes they're blatantly obvious to me, and fall into
		the next category below).  In any instance where someone
		claims harassment I will most likely ask both you and the
		user to simply stop communicating with each other; if you're
		not doing anything to provoke the user, then you presumably
		will have no objection to this.  On the other hand, there
		have been instances where one person knowingly baits a
		Nyx user into communicating with them, then claims harassment.
		I do my best in these cases, but sometimes even the Wisdom of
		Solomon wouldn't be enough.  If both you and the other user
		are Nyx members, so I have "jurisdiction" over both, and
		I feel both of you are at fault, I may ask both of you to
		"cease fire".  But, if I only have a say over one user, and
		it appears to me that both sides are at fault, I may only
		_suggest_ both parties cease hostilities -- it wouldn't be
		fair to penalize only one side in such a case (which has
		happened more than once, hence the explicit mention).

		Many instances of these "alleged" illegal or rude actions
		are so murky that I just have to do my best and realize I
		can't please everyone.  Fortunately, there is still a "real
		world" court system, so if you feel I've not acted the way
		you'd like, and feel the need to handle the user differently,
		my advice (as much as I hate encouraging lawsuits) would be
		to take that person to court.  One could argue that if
		you don't feel *that* strongly about what the user allegedly
		did (presumably did to _you_) then I would suggest it's
		not that big a deal in the first place.  But the fact
		remains that if you don't like how I handle something, there
		are alternatives.  I will try my best to resolve all
		difficulties nonetheless, but I can't please everyone; I
		just call them like I see them.

	- If they're doing something absolutely, knowingly, blatantly,
		"clearly", illegal, say, posting credit card numbers to
		be used for fraud, or posting "here's a site you can get
		pirated warez from", or post a copy of well known commercial
		software (something nearly anyone would recognize as such),
		or they crack passwords on your machine and break in --
		then I'm much more likely to take direct action.  In
		this case, what I do is send them back to "preview"
		(unproven identity) status, as I highly doubt anyone
		would use their real name to do something this clearly
		illegal (and stupid).  I usually impose stricter
		identity checks at that point also.  This has the net
		effect of removing their account, but not as
		punishment.

	- A special and recurring common case is commercialism.  There is
		no law against commercial posts, but I will likely scold
		someone for it since it does go against common netiquette.
		However, unless they are being truly obnoxious about it,
		it may well fall within their right to free speech.  I
		just take them case by case; most of them result in
		apologies, hopefully it will continue this way.

	- There seemingly should be some sort of "statute of limitations".
		I mean, if someone complains about a posting sent off a
		many weeks ago, it's probably not worth the effort at this
		late date -- it was either dealt with at the time if someone
		else felt upset about it, or you're the only one, and
		thousands of other people didn't have a problem with it.
		But if it's really old, you may be best off just dropping
		it and not dredging up what is likely to be a closed issue.
		The only obvious exception I can see would be private
		email to you that you feel is harassing/threatening and you
		didn't read it until just now (e.g. you were out of town).

	- I'm willing to act as a mediator in your dispute, and try to get
		you and the other side to come to terms.  However, both you
		and they need to have a open mind.  But, I'm game.

	- But, one thing I would never to, to anyone -- you, them, etc. --
		is to just shut off their account because I disagree with
		what they've done.  As much as you, or even I, might think
		they're an awful person, I won't sink below them by
		censoring them, and I will try to convince you likewise.


Some other concerns I'd like to express:

	- Do you know for a FACT that the user you're accusing truly
		did what you say?  It is very possible that a posting or
		e-mail message was forged.  Forgery is extremely easy, and
		basically impossible to trace/prove.  So easy that you
		really can't trust the name on any article or email. 
		You can have more trust if it has a pgp signature on it,
		but even that's not 100%.  I'd hate to jump all over someone
		who really didn't do what they're accused of.  Remember,
		innocent until proven guilty makes sense on the net too.

	- Please understand that in many cases, what they've done isn't
		against any law, and it may not even be stretching
		what's acceptable behavior on the net.  In some
		newsgroups, for example, it's competely acceptable to
		have "Followup-to: misc.test", just because that's the
		culture of the net.  Many novices don't understand this
		(and I'm not saying _you're_ a novice, as I almost
		certainly don't know you), but many of the complaints I
		received that have led to the writing of this have been
		from users who just didn't understand that, well,
		Usenet is just this way.  It's the purest form of free
		speech that's ever existed (to my knowledge), and often
		shocks people not expecting it.  It's something to be valued.

		Likewise, Usenet allows users to create and delete
		groups themselves.  Though this isn't absolutely
		common knowledge how to do this, it's not hard.  I might
		scold users for invoking such magic, but, it's not a
		crime to do it.

	- Please make it clear whether you're complaining about the
		content of the message, or the style/format.  In many cases,
		it's not so much *what* someone is saying that's offensive,
		but the manner in which they say it.  I wish everyone would
		be polite and discuss things intelligently, without acrimony,
		but, it just won't happen.  Sometimes people have a valid
		message to get out, but just phrase it extremely poorly.
		Sometimes all that's needed is a little education.

		For example, when it's a matter of style (e.g., loud obnoxious
		postings, frequently repeated, etc.) I try to convince
		the sender that *they're* better off if they make it a little
		softer "sell".  People with unpopular opinions often feel a
		need to shout their opinions loudly, thinking this will gain
		them followers.  I tend to believe that if they speak them
		softly and intelligently they'll carry much greater weight. 
		(It's just common sense: If you offend the person you're
		trying to convert, you'll never convert them.)

		Matters of content alone are trickier.  This is where the
		issue of censorship comes into play in full force.  I.e.,
		they say it nicely, it's just that you hate what they say.
		E.g., silver-tounged Nazi propaganda.  Most people (myself
		included) find these type of views highly repugnant.  However,
		I prefer to live in a world where people are free to express
		those views.  The problem is that humanity, as a group, could
		never decide exactly where to draw the line between what's
		"acceptable" and what's "not acceptable".  I'd rather let
		each person judge for themself.  I believe evil views are
		better off withering in the public light than festering and
		growing in the dark.

	- I agree users have a responsibility to live with the consequences
		of their speech.  I want to make it clear that I'm not
		saying users on Nyx can say any old thing and get away with
		it.  We're not a pirate board, etc.  We are, though, a very
		diverse group of users, and most of us are pretty tolerant
		of others.  Again, note that anonymous users on Nyx are not
		100% anonymous.  Their identity is known, so they can't
		act with reckless abandon.

	- Remember that not everyone will agree with your position either.
		For example, if a user posted something offensive to usenet,
		and you want said user censored, try posting a note saying
		"I'm conducting a poll, how many people want username@nyx
		censored, vote yes/no", and I'm sure you'll find that you
		get both yes and no votes.  And both the "yes"s and the
		"no"s will usually be very vehement in their position.

	- Tolerance.  I guess the key word is Tolerance.  Though I personally
		disagree with the views of many Nyx users, I tolerate their
		right to say/do things.  I will often try to "educate" them that
		their views seem to lead to a poorer state for all
		humanity, but I won't *force* my views on them, and I ask
		that they not *force* their views on others.  (But I won't
		force them not to force their views on people... etc.)


So, where do we go from here?

	- If you haven't contacted the user directly, do so.

	- I'll talk to the user, though I don't have time to update everyone
		on the results; if you're really curious, write me back after
		a while and ask whatever happened.  I won't just ignore it,
		though I may not produce any results either.

	- If you don't think I've addressed your concern, write me back,
		clarifying things.

	- If I've addressed it but you're just not happy with how I handle
		things, still write me back, maybe we can work things out.
		Or perhaps we can agree to differ, and leave it at that.

	- Nyx has a policy that users must stand behind their words, or
		lose their account.  That is, I believe that users who post
		material not appropriate, etc., need to either justify their
		actions to their detractors, or apologize, or lose their
		account on Nyx.  To this end, expect some correspondence
		from the instigator of this within a few days.  I give users
		a week (after their next login), then their account is
		deactivated.  ** If you haven't heard from them in a
		while after getting this (i.e., a week after a finger on them
		shows they logged in), please drop me a note so I can
		investigate if I got a copy, etc. **

		A "punishment" deactivation like this may be permanent
		(if the user blatantly ignores the problem resolution
		process, for example) or for a set period of time, most
		commonly six months for the first deactivation, then one
		year, then two, doubling for each offense; all at my
		discretion of course, depending on mitigating factors, etc.
		I'll do what I feel is fair, you'll just have to trust me.

	- I discourage you from trying to take things higher within DU,
		however.  Sending to postmaster@cs.du.edu just goes back
		to me.  Sending to postmaster@du.edu goes to a colleague
		who forwards it to me.  Contacting the chairman of our
		department gets it sent to me.  Contacting the chancellor
		of the university gets it, you guessed it, sent to me.
		From what I've seen from past cases, most of those up
		the chain from me share the same basic values regarding
		freedom of speech, so the only effect of contacting them
		is to slow things down (i.e., while the message gets
		sent back to me).

	- If you have a problem of a legal nature with a user, and we can't
		resolve it by talking, you do have recourse within the
		court system.  I hate to say "you need to sue them", but,
		if you feel strongly, that's an option open to you.  I
		don't encourage you to name DU in such a suit, as it's
		highly likely the stand we take as explained above will
		hold up in court.  It makes a much sense as suing the
		post office because you don't like the mail you received,
		for example.

I try to run a philosophically consistent ship, i.e., one that values
people's views at an occasional price of minor offense.  If the mathematics
existed for it, one could probably prove that these kinds of problems have
*no* solution; the best one can hope for is some kind of overall maximum.
I do what I think is best toward that goal, i.e., best for humanity as a
whole and each individual.  I hope I've explained my actions and
reasoning so you understand where I'm coming from.  If you have any more
comments, I'm aburt@nyx.cs.du.edu.


Appended here is a copy of the text sent to the poster:
==========
[Form letter, but don't let that fool you.]  By getting this letter, someone
on the net has written me expressing a grievance about something you posted
to usenet, or a similar complaint.

Typically this means you posted something they considered "rude" or to a
group that has little or nothing to do with your subject matter.

I have sent them a copy of Nyx's free speech policy, which you should also
read (it's in the menus in the info menu, or just read the file
/nyx/info/free.speech).

As it says, I believe users who post things should stand behind their words.
My philosophical reasons for this are that the net (and human relations
in general) are fragile, and need each one of us to tend to them.  When one
person selfishly acts like a twit for no good reason, it acts to tear down
what's good about humanity (and things like the net).  Yet, if you have
equally strong philosophical feelings justifying your actions, then I think
they need to be heard by all concerned.  In other words, stand up for what
you said, or retract it (with apologies and promises of not doing it again).

Hence, Nyx's policy on this sort of behavior is:

	YOU contact each person who has "accused" you of bad behavior
	AND "cc" your discussion to me so I know you have replied
	and what was said.

	The content of said message should be one of:

		1)  Thorough and iron-clad defense of why you believe
		    what you said was correct, appropriate, not
		    rude, etc. etc.; or
		2)  An apology and statement that you won't do it again.
		    (In the case of a news posting, you must post an
		    apology to the same groups as the offending post, in
		    addition to replying by email to each person.)

Failure to send email to both me and each user whose message I forward
to you, within one week of next login after it's forwarded, will result
in your Nyx account being unvalidated (reverting to preview mode).  [My
assumption being that you don't care enough to deal with it.]

Of course, if you invoke #2, and DO do it again, you'll lose your account
for being insincere.  Think of it as a "two strikes and you're out" rule.
Also, making frivolous and totally irrational justifications will count as
neither #1 or #2, and result in account termination.  That is, if you're
going to argue your point, you have to be rational and logical about it,
not just blabbering.

Account terminations may be permanent or for some fixed period of time,
depending on mitigating factors.  For example, a first offense may result
in six month's deactivation, a second in a year's, then two year's, etc.
As sysadmin I retain full decision in "sentencing", but these are the
guidelines I'm likely to follow.

Also recall that to obtain your Nyx account you signed a contract which
included the point that you will not violate usenet etiquette.  If you have
a problem with netiquette (which has evolved basically along the same
philosophical principles I adhere to), then -- leave the net.

Please remember when you post that you're not alone in the world, nor does
the world revolve around you.  Put a better way, apply the "What if everybody
did this?" test to your actions.  For example, if everybody posted to
newsgroups that weren't relevant (as a joke, to get attention, whatever),
we'd have no need for newsgroups, we could just lump all the tens of
thousands of messages together in one pile.  And hey, no need for subject
headers, let's just have everyone read the text of ALL the messages to see
if they're interested.  As for courtesy, why, if folks aren't nice to me,
that means I don't have to be nice to anyone else, right?  So let's just
all be really nasty and rude to each other.  If you like that idea, let's
just carry it to its natural conclusion and all kill each other; let's leave
the planet to the ants and dolphins.  Yeah, right.  So just remember, when
you take action X, you're setting a precedent that it's ok for ANYBODY to
do action X, in fact, you're encouraging that X be done by everybody and
often.  Is that *really* the kind of world you want to live in?  If you
really think about the ultimate consequences of it, I'm sure you'll say no.

Please remember that unless we bring back slavery or encourage
dictatorships, the only way humans can build civilizations is by
cooperation, which requires courtesy and common sense.  Oh, by the way,
if we do bring back slavery, figure you'll be one of the slaves :-)

I'm not trying to censor anyone, just ensure that they support their beliefs.
I hope to encourage people to see past their own self-interests and lack
of concern for others.  This policy allows you to have any view you
want, and express any opinion you want, in any reasonable way you want --
as long as you're willing to defend your position.

Message you need to deal with is:




[Your (sender's complaint) mail included here]
==========
=======


[If you've read this far, congratulations.  Feel free to read about our
policies, history, philosophy, etc., all in the info menu too.  Sorry I'm
so verbose, but, actually, with this Keegan thing, this is just scratching
the surface (I mean, I could add those 1030+ postings as evidence...)

Anyway, have a good one, thanks for reading my side of the story.]