Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!Firewall!uunet!mcsun!ukc!dcl-cs!aber-cs!athene!pcg From: pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy Subject: Re: harassing mail Message-ID: Date: 14 Jun 91 17:31:56 GMT References: <1991May23.030459.8377@osh3.OSHA.GOV> <1991Jun10.161228.19437@rodan.acs.syr.edu> Sender: pcg@aber-cs.UUCP Organization: Coleg Prifysgol Cymru Lines: 61 On 10 Jun 91 16:12:28 GMT, jstewart@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Ace Stewart) said: jstewart> Do sysadmins add and delete the accounts? Do they handle jstewart> diskspace requests, do they tell them they did "a bad thing" jstewart> when they tried to 'su root' 25 times in a row? I believe that jstewart> sysadmins _do_ have some authority over the users on that jstewart> system, and now we have to draw an infamous line of where that jstewart> authority stops and starts. By the same token, the guy in the company stationery store will or will not give you pencils and paper. To me authority means "supervisor" or "manager", not "sysadmin". Sysadmins are there to make the system work, to provide a service, not to manage humans. They are technical NCOs, not officers. jstewart> How do you control people who attack others on a listserv for jstewart> instance? It is a discussionary medium, and many people can be jstewart> offended in one piece of mail. That is the problem of the offendor. And the problem of the offended party. As soon as you, the provider of the service, get involved, you have to take issue with the contents of the offensive message. This requires judgement and legitimate authority. A sysadmin should never get embroiled in these things. jstewart> Is it right for those people to be told "we can't do jstewart> anything"... which comes close to advocating that attack? Advocating by omission? Are you sure? Personal responsibility no longer exists? jstewart> Or, alternatively, do we "speak" to the user and "suggest" jstewart> that perhaps he could do better? Is there any harm in that as jstewart> opposed to passing the complaint-ant to "someone in charge?" Yes, that you are essentially blackmailing the user. Just like the stationery guy that does not like you and tells you there no more pencils when the store is full just because he does not like you. Petty harassment, by people who are in a position of "power". Your duty is to cooperate with users, whether you think they are "bad" or "good", under the directives of people responsible for human management. These must judge, where appropriate, whether behaviour is "good" or "bad", and give you the relative directives. Otherwise every little petty NCO in every type of organization can hold everybody else at ransom. jstewart> And, in all that, we're not censoring until a person jstewart> force-ably stops outgoing mail, edits it, etc. It is just a jstewart> suggestion. I ask hoping for constructive responses... is this jstewart> a solution? The solution is to know who is in charge and have good human relationships. Not to take into one's hands petty "authority". You may reply that if proper behaviour does not work or is otherwise inappropriate, and there is no hope to rectify the situation, then expediency wins. Yes, that's true. But then the organization has poor managers. -- Piercarlo Grandi | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@aber.ac.uk