Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "William R. Szabo II" <IEKES@*******.BITNET>
Subject: ADMIN: ShadowTalk
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 09:45:50 -0700
The following is a message I recieved after once again being dropped
from Shadowtk.
About 1 month ago I showed interrest in once again subscribing to the
shadowtk discussion list.
Before I did, I posted about the fact that my persona "D." had trailers
that he did not understand after his posts. This character was around
last year and had none of this type of troubles.
Anyway, When I made an inquiry about my posts W/ the trailers, I got
no negative responses. I only got posts from several people who were glad
to have "D." back and his unusual quotes back.
This showed me that the quotes were a strong part of his personality,
and had been what people had remembered from over 5 months of not having
posted to shadowtk.
Now, I seem to remember several individuals who had unusual posting
styles, ie. Harlaquin, someone who used ***** instead of >>>>> and a
few others. Those unusual parts of thier posts were part of thier characters
I feel that if an ADMIN would have made some sort of comment to me when
I made my original inquiry I would have had no problems. I may have not even
signed back up to shadowtk.

If you feel the need to flame me for my character, feel free. I would
however, like some sort of admin reply. I have little intention of changing
a long standing and well thought of character. I am sorry if I have stepped
on anyones toes.

Thank you for any time and effort spent.

ciao.

iekes@*****.inre.asu.edu

reply to me, not to shadowtk please...

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> ***** Viper Search Team Only: 101.a
> >>>>>[I havvve spent the past sevvveral days checking with some of my
> contacts who specialize in vvvampyre interrests... None of them seem to
> havvve seen U.V.F. in quite a while... I should be coming back to town
> vvvery soon... Purhaps we should meet and discuss some of our
leads...]<<<<<
> -- D. <09:37:14 / 06-28-55>
>
> "May darkness prevail in the shadows of light."

Mein Herr:

I find myself once again having to apprise you as to the accepted
conventions in posting formats. As you apparently saw fit to ignore my
counsel on the previous occasion, and to demonstrate that my previous
intentions were, indeed, sincere, your subscription has been summarily
executed in accordance with well established procedure.

That is not to say, however, that you are by ANY MEANS prohibited
to subscribe yet again; in fact, I would encourage you to do so.
Nevetheless, I stress the point that if you persist in your deviance from
the proper format -- adopted for the benefit of all -- then you shall be
deleted again.

Again, the format is as follows:

Standard Style:

***** (Key Word): Name List (optional)
>>>>>[Text to be discussed]<<<<<
-- ID < Time / Date >

Where:
(Key Word) = This refers to the key words for the two styles of post
encryption, those being "PRIVATE" and "NOT TO".
Name List = This is a list of names of personnas that the encryption is
keyed to. For private messages, it is a list of those who
are able to read the post. For barring messages, it is the
list of people who cannot read the message.

Hence, your encryption should have been:

***** PRIVATE: (whatever group of individuals to which you refer)

Again, I emphasize that you are more than free to re-subscribe, although if
you prove obdurate in your violation of standard formatting, this process
shall be repeated.

________________ _______ _______ ____ ____
\ _____ \ / \ / \ / \/ \ >>> Attack,
\ | | | |---___ | ___---| | || || | attack, and
| | | | |_____/ | \_____| | || || | if in doubt
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | | | | | | || || | ATTACK! <<<
"Iron hand in a | |___/ / \_______/ \_______/|____| |____| -=-=-=-=-=-
velvet glove." | / ||
-- Charles V |_______/ Dread Executor of Administrative Tasks for Hayden

^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
Message no. 2
From: The Dead Wyrm <oroboros@*****.ARBORNET.ORG>
Subject: Re: ADMIN: ShadowTalk
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 13:50:41 -0400
Simple suggestion:

Put the 'neat quote' INSIDE the >>>>>[ ]<<<<<.

--
Ouroboros
The (Dead) Wyrm of the .Net
Message no. 3
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: ADMIN: ShadowTalk
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 17:07:02 +0100
Uh, I hate to say it, but when you subscribe you are given very specific
directions on the format of posting, and are told that if you don't
follow them, you will be deleted.

And you are surprised this happened?

Also, formats have changed from over a year ago and you are expected to
follow the new ones.

____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> I do not necessarily speak for the
\/ Finger for PGP Public Key <=> City of Mankato or Blue Earth County
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1) GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)
Message no. 4
From: Doctor Doom <jch8169@*******.TAMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: ADMIN: ShadowTalk
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 17:34:46 -0500
Herr Szabo:

I have perused your complaint.

You are in error as to the reasons for which you were deleted.
Notice what was included in my ADMIN message that I dispatched to you:
References to /encryption/ protocols. No mention was included vis-a-vis
your characterization. There was no commentary -- derisive or otherwise --
regarding the quotations you include in your postings.

What I did place therein were the pertinent regulations within the
ShadowTalk FAQ which you had violated. You may also recall that I
dispatched a similar message, with similar contents, previous to this
occasion, intimating that if you saw fit to ignore my admonitions, I
should escalate my efforts.

I enumerated on the regulations pertinent to my chastisment of you,
and I even included an example of the /proper format/, the deviation
from which caused this unfortunate situation in the first place.

In short, you have wholly mis-interpreted my actions, despite my
best efforts; although, I am at a personal loss as to how you
could have formulated these misconceptions given the text in my
two communiques.

Albeit in another vein, in response to the case of other supposedly
sanctioned, unorthodox formats: I am aware of only ONE individual
who fits that description, Daniel Waisley's Nightfox character. He
received administrative blessing for this due to his utilizing
atypical posting formats /previous/ to the implementation of the
contemporary regulations.

You were not deleted because of personal caprice, nor owing to the
fact that you supposedly "stepped on anyone's toes," nor because of
your "objectionable" characterization -- with which I possess no
quarrel, as was intentionally indicated in my silence regarding
your query of some time hence. However, it /was/ for formatting
violations, specifically: Encryptions.

Now that the reasons for your subscription's execution are clear,
do you yet harbor any uncertainties?

________________ _______ _______ ____ ____
\ _____ \ / \ / \ / \/ \ >>> Attack,
\ | | | |---___ | ___---| | || || | attack, and
| | | | |_____/ | \_____| | || || | if in doubt
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | | | | | | || || | ATTACK! <<<
"Iron hand in a | |___/ / \_______/ \_______/|____| |____| -=-=-=-=-=-
velvet glove." | / ||
-- Charles V |_______/ Dread Executor of Administrative Tasks for Hayden

^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
Message no. 5
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.EFN.ORG>
Subject: Re: ADMIN: ShadowTalk
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 17:00:11 -0700
RE: William R. Szabo II,

Pardon me, but is following a simple procedure that much trouble? They
aren't asking for blood by the pint, just confority in the layout of your
posts.

Ivy
Message no. 6
From: "William R. Szabo II" <IEKES@*******.BITNET>
Subject: Re: ADMIN: ShadowTalk
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 20:32:57 -0700
I have read your replies and re-read said post. I would like to
appologize to Doom for MY error. I do regret however, I did not read
any earlier posts about my encryptions and my error in formating them.
This was most certainly due to my loosing net access on my other account.
Once again, I am regret the tone of my earlier post.

William R. Szabo II


ciao.
Message no. 7
From: Gian-Paolo Musumeci <musumeci@***.LIS.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: ADMIN: ShadowTalk
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 09:54:47 -0500
> with which I possess no quarrel, as was intentionally indicated in my
> silence regarding your query of some time hence.

Is silence to be considered approval, then, sir?
Message no. 8
From: Doctor Doom <jch8169@*******.TAMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: ADMIN: ShadowTalk
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 1994 12:06:40 -0500
>
> > with which I possess no quarrel, as was intentionally indicated in my
> > silence regarding your query of some time hence.
>
> Is silence to be considered approval, then, sir?

Not necessarily. However, in the case of D.'s postings, when Herr Szabo
queried as to whe'er or not some/anyone had a "problem" with this
particular tendency, the silence should have been indicative of the
aforementioned conclusion, yes.

________________ _______ _______ ____ ____
\ _____ \ / \ / \ / \/ \ >>> Attack,
\ | | | |---___ | ___---| | || || | attack, and
| | | | |_____/ | \_____| | || || | if in doubt
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | | | | | | || || | ATTACK! <<<
"Iron hand in a | |___/ / \_______/ \_______/|____| |____| -=-=-=-=-=-
velvet glove." | / ||
-- Charles V |_______/ Dread Executor of Administrative Tasks for Hayden

^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
Message no. 9
From: Brad Shantz <bshantz@****.COM>
Subject: Re: ADMIN: ShadowTalk
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 15:24:04 PDT
>> That should be
>> ***** PRIVATE: What
>>
>> A slight modification, but an important distinction nonetheless.

>That should be
>***** sent via private: email

>A slight modification, but an important distinction nonetheless.

Not to be a burden, but I think that posting to the group or to Plot-D for Dr.
Doom's message was fine. I got whacked across the wrists for posting in a
wrong format, but I wasn't the only one doing it, and it was continuing
amongst others as well. A global "thwap" to the group was easier and faster
than individuals.

Brad

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about ADMIN: ShadowTalk, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.