11
vaughan
Re: Terms of use and XOOPSiquette modification
  • 2007/9/14 15:45

  • vaughan

  • Friend of XOOPS

  • Posts: 680

  • Since: 2005/11/26


and yes, 1 account per user.. why should anybody need more than 1 account except for what dave_l mentioned.

if you become stalked, it's dead easy to ask an admin to change your username etc. but that won't stop a stalker, neither will creating a new account, because many people tend to post the same way, and that person will inevitably get the attention of the stalker again because the person will still be posting in the same way as before.. it will only be a matter of time.

12
Peekay
Re: Terms of use and XOOPSiquette modification
  • 2007/9/14 15:51

  • Peekay

  • XOOPS is my life!

  • Posts: 2335

  • Since: 2004/11/20


Quote:

kc0maz wrote:
It has been suggested several times that terms of service agreement should include that there should be only one user account per person.

Would that be the same suggestion from several people, or several suggestions from the same person?
A thread is for life. Not just for Christmas.

13
Marco
Re: Terms of use and XOOPSiquette modification
  • 2007/9/14 15:57

  • Marco

  • Home away from home

  • Posts: 1256

  • Since: 2004/3/15


Quote:

kc0maz wrote:
It has been suggested several times that terms of service agreement should include that there should be only one user account per person.

agree, since i've many times asked for.
Do synergy or die.

14
kc0maz
Re: Terms of use and XOOPSiquette modification
  • 2007/9/14 16:05

  • kc0maz

  • Quite a regular

  • Posts: 216

  • Since: 2005/4/18


Quote:

Peekay wrote:
Would that be the same suggestion from several people, or several suggestions from the same person?


The idea has been bounce around several forums by different people.

Quote:

BlueStocking wrote:
The rules you are thinking of is for the ease of banning certain individuals -

The reality is, it will have no more effect than trying to ban a spam-mer if they decide to spam.

Again just my opinion, yours may vary.
BS


Not just for enforcing bans, also for recognizing someone for good work.
Some dream of success, while others wake up and work for it.
--unknown

15
Peekay
Re: Terms of use and XOOPSiquette modification
  • 2007/9/14 16:06

  • Peekay

  • XOOPS is my life!

  • Posts: 2335

  • Since: 2004/11/20


Quote:

Marco wrote:

agree, since i've many times asked for.

So how come there is an instant-zero and an instantzero account?
A thread is for life. Not just for Christmas.

16
vaughan
Re: Terms of use and XOOPSiquette modification
  • 2007/9/14 16:08

  • vaughan

  • Friend of XOOPS

  • Posts: 680

  • Since: 2005/11/26


1 is hervet & the other i dunno, maybe hervet or marco.

17
Marco
Re: Terms of use and XOOPSiquette modification
  • 2007/9/14 16:08

  • Marco

  • Home away from home

  • Posts: 1256

  • Since: 2004/3/15


Quote:

Not just for enforcing bans, also for recognizing someone for good work.

nice, at once a positive attitude.
Let's solve the problems/questions and we won't have to ban anymore, only to promote good works and sharing attitudes.
Do synergy or die.

18
hervet
Re: Terms of use and XOOPSiquette modification
  • 2007/9/14 16:16

  • hervet

  • Friend of XOOPS

  • Posts: 2267

  • Since: 2003/11/4


peekay wrote:
Quote:

So how come there is an instant-zero and an instantzero account?

just to avoid that some stupid person use it.
Nothing else.
It was made with the same intention as the one you can find in the users preferences of your site (if you are doing some)

19
BlueStocking
Re: Terms of use and XOOPSiquette modification

Recognizing good works should be attached to the nic the good works were done in and according to what the author desired.

Multiple nics have nothing to do with recognizing good works, any more than multiple nics have anything to do with giving recognition to bad works.

What one considers BAD WORKS, the same action may be considered a service to the community by another.

Case in point

GIJOE when he came on as Herko, on his account, to point out graphically the security flaw in the system. Ticked everyone off but made a positive change.

We are now encouraged to USE his module for protection.

LOOK AT THE MESSAGE, don't condemn the message bearer.

Again, my opinion.

ALSO my research showed that the major break-in of this system that resulted in the destroying of the docs was someone left the INSTALL DIRECTORY ENABLED and a user simply reinstalled the system. I don't view that as a major hack job, I consider it stupidity on the part of the one who left the install directory in tack.

Again, this is just my opinion based on independent online research and it seems as plausible to me as any other explanation I have heard so far.

BlueStocking
https://xoops.org/modules/repository .. It is time to get involved - XOOPS.ORG

20
vaughan
Re: Terms of use and XOOPSiquette modification
  • 2007/9/14 16:27

  • vaughan

  • Friend of XOOPS

  • Posts: 680

  • Since: 2005/11/26


or when Damaster came on using herko's account to cause grief.

Login

Who's Online

167 user(s) are online (135 user(s) are browsing Support Forums)


Members: 0


Guests: 167


more...

Donat-O-Meter

Stats
Goal: $100.00
Due Date: May 31
Gross Amount: $0.00
Net Balance: $0.00
Left to go: $100.00
Make donations with PayPal!

Latest GitHub Commits