Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Vulpine's ACLU affidavit

64 views
Skip to first unread message

Tod T. Fox

unread,
Mar 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/23/96
to
Apparently the affidavit I entered in the ACLU's federal court
challenge to the CDA has created an uproar. Before you judge my actions,
please take the time to read the actual affidavit, which can be found at
http://www.aclu.org/court/kit.html

Unfortunately, the wizzes of both FT & FM have chosen to @toad me without
any notice or warning so I have been unable to speak for myself in either
of those forums.

For those of you don't know me, I was on FurToonia since shortly after it
began, built several major areas there(Mythwood Forest,
Furtoonia-Intergalactic Spaceport, parts of Vulpes Vale), and served a
lengthy stint on its helpstaff.

If someone had told me a year ago that I'd be kicked off for talking
about how important the MUCKs are to me, I wouldn't have believed them.

I believe it is important to fight the CDA rather than sticking our heads
in the sand and hoping they won't notice us as they rape & pillage the 'net.

Tod
--
'the wind is a Lady with bright slender eyes(who moves)at sunset and *
who- -the hills without * Join the CDA suit! http://www.cdt.org/ciec/ *
touches any reason.' -e.e. cummings *vul...@gold.mv.net*
*Temperance@Urban Legends (Staff)* Vulpine@SocioPoltical Ramifications (Staff)*

Gary Breuckman

unread,
Mar 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/23/96
to
In article <DopJH...@granite.mv.net>, Tod T. Fox <vul...@gold.mv.net> wrote:
>Apparently the affidavit I entered in the ACLU's federal court
>challenge to the CDA has created an uproar. Before you judge my actions,
>please take the time to read the actual affidavit, which can be found at
>http://www.aclu.org/court/kit.html
>
>Unfortunately, the wizzes of both FT & FM have chosen to @toad me without
>any notice or warning so I have been unable to speak for myself in either
>of those forums.
>
>If someone had told me a year ago that I'd be kicked off for talking
>about how important the MUCKs are to me, I wouldn't have believed them.


Puma's read your affidavit.

In it, you stated quite clearly that you had made the choice to
provide false information to the wizzards regarding your age.

I don't know specifically why you were toaded, but this seems a good
reason to me. I would have done it. You had the choice to provide your
correct age and then wait the short time until you were 18 for an adult
flag, or just wait and see if this all blows over.

Instead, you decided to betray the trust you had been given, and a
helpstaff fur besides... Oh well, you did it to yourself.


--
pu...@netcom.com

Steve Stadnicki

unread,
Mar 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/23/96
to
I should point out first of all that this is _not_ an official statement
on FurryMUCK's behalf; I'm not speaing for the wizards as a whole, just
giving some of my own comments on the matter; nothing in this post should
be considered as handed down 'on high' from the FurryMUCK wizards as a
group.

That said:

Tod T. Fox (vul...@gold.mv.net) wrote:
: Unfortunately, the wizzes of both FT & FM have chosen to @toad me without

: any notice or warning so I have been unable to speak for myself in either
: of those forums.

'Access to FurryMUCK may be denied for any reason deemed appropriate by
the administrators, including but not limited to: [...] Falsification of
registration information.'
[...]
'Violation of any of the terms and conditions of service may result in
any or all of the following: [...] Removal of your character and
termination of access to the MUCK and its computing resources without
prior notice.'

Among other things, Vulpine willfully falsified his registration information,
specifically his age. Given this, we were clearly in our rights (as
outlined above) to simply toad him.

Does this mean we were right in doing it? That's a much thornier issue,
obviously. The best analogy here is probably to the copyright situation;
if we want our provisions to have any meaning, if we want them to be an
effective stopgap at all against the threat of a law suit or other
'official' intervention on FurryMUCK, we have to show that we're taking
our rules seriously and enforcing them.

: If someone had told me a year ago that I'd be kicked off for talking

: about how important the MUCKs are to me, I wouldn't have believed them.

This is specious; you weren't kicked off for 'talking about how important
the MUCKs are', you were kicked off for deliberately falsifying information,
and further for publically bragging about that lie. If you'd like, you
can think of it as 'having been made an example of'... we feel that we have
to be serious about this to protect ourselves, and we have to show that we
_are_ serious about it.

: I believe it is important to fight the CDA rather than sticking our heads

: in the sand and hoping they won't notice us as they rape & pillage the 'net.

I heartily agree with the sentiment that we should be fighting the CDA; but
frankly, Furry's fears are greater than the CDA. With or without that law,
we're still very at risk from any county DA with a mission; and S'A'Alis'
career, and arguably much of his life, would most likely be ruined by any
court case, regardless of the outcome. This is obviously a worst-case
scenario -- but the scenario is bad enough that I think S'A'Alis is completely
right in taking measures he considers prudent to prevent it.

It's worth noting that the information that FurryMUCK (and FurToonia) are
asking for is comparable to, if not less than, what you'll be asked by your
average ISP or adult BBS. We're not asking for much, folks... though with
the history of the net, it's easy to understand how asking for anything
will generate resistance. This isn't a black or white issue... we're not
being draconian just because; we really _do_ have reasons for the steps
we're taking.

: Tod

Steven Stadnicki/Shaterri
scr...@woof.net

David Green

unread,
Mar 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/23/96
to
In article <DopJH...@granite.mv.net>, Tod T. Fox <vul...@gold.mv.net> wrote:
>Apparently the affidavit I entered in the ACLU's federal court
>challenge to the CDA has created an uproar. Before you judge my actions,
>please take the time to read the actual affidavit, which can be found at
>http://www.aclu.org/court/kit.html

Done.

>Unfortunately, the wizzes of both FT & FM have chosen to @toad me without
>any notice or warning so I have been unable to speak for myself in either
>of those forums.

I can't speak for FurToonia at all, but I do know that, at Furry, your
character has not been @toaded; merely @newpassworded. I'm not entirely
certain what kind of speaking for yourself you wanted to do in those fora,
but you could certainly have delivered any speeches you wanted to before you
chose to falsify your information.

>If someone had told me a year ago that I'd be kicked off for talking
>about how important the MUCKs are to me, I wouldn't have believed them.

That's not why you were kicked off, and, if you are as intelligent as you
seem to be, you know it. Furry's Acceptable Use Policy states explicitly
that falsifying registration information is a punishable offense. The
*least* of the punishments listed for this offense is suspension from the
system, and this is the one you received.

>I believe it is important to fight the CDA rather than sticking our heads
>in the sand and hoping they won't notice us as they rape & pillage the 'net.

Something you should know about civil disobedience, which seems to be what
you want to practice: just because you break the (law, rules, etc.) for a
cause, *doesn't* mean that you won't be punished for having broken that (law,
rule, etc.). Inconsistent penalties for violating rules aren't fair, and
if you want to break the rules, you need to be prepared to accept the
consequences for having done so.

That aside, people are *not* just "sticking [their] heads in the sand and
hoping [T]hey won't notice [them] as [T]hey rape & pillage the 'net."
People are supporting the ACLU and the other organizations fighting the CDA
in a legal manner. Until such time as other methods have all failed,
operating within the law to bring about the end of the CDA, as long as the
methods you're using have a chance to be effective, are sufficient.

The COWZ Administratio

unread,
Mar 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/23/96
to
nebu...@divcom.umop-ap.com (David Green) writes:

> That's not why you were kicked off, and, if you are as intelligent as you
> seem to be, you know it. Furry's Acceptable Use Policy states explicitly
> that falsifying registration information is a punishable offense. The
> *least* of the punishments listed for this offense is suspension from the
> system, and this is the one you received.

Now, all the rest of this hoo-hah aside (and most if it IS hoo-hah), I was
just wondering as a wizard of TinyTIM:

If deleting the guy off of your game was the *least* of the punishments,
what are some of the *greater* punishments you could issue?

Going to his house and beating him? Having him arrested for saying he was
329 when he was 17? Setting someone he loved on fire?

I'm just wondering because as a guy who helps run one of the largest of
these games, we've been trying to come up with cool things to do to
butterheads that were GREATER than deleting them.

Curious,
Sketch the Cow
Last Bastion of Freedom Involving Anthropomorphic Characters


Peter da Silva

unread,
Mar 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/23/96
to
Your position is consistent and supportable, and your action is a
reasonable act of civil disobedience. Accepting the consequence of
that act is one of the things that gives such acts meaning.

In other words, you did not act improperly and neither did FurryMuck.

I am in a similar position, albeit less extreme, in that I am 35 years
old but I refuse to "officially" certify that to Furry. As a result they
won't let me have a new character, though for the time being they're
not suspending my acces to my existing characters. The difference is
that I'm withholding information rather than lying.

Is that a significant distinction? Apparently.

Timothy D Fay

unread,
Mar 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/24/96
to
Tod T. Fox (vul...@gold.mv.net) wrote:

>Unfortunately, the wizzes of both FT & FM have chosen to @toad me without
>any notice or warning so I have been unable to speak for myself in either
>of those forums.

I'm not sure if your affidavit was strictly necessary, and I have to
question the timing of it as well. Having said that, you have my
compliments for taking a stand against Senator Exon and the CDA, when
others have shown little more than a large streak of yellow and great
deal of paranoia and unjustified angst.

It's unfortunate, too, because by admitting you didn't tell them your
correct age, you have left yourself open to being kicked off of those
MUCKs. I can't justify lying about your age, but you have exposed the
critical flaw in the age-based restrictions imposed on those MUCKs. A
flaw that I have repeatedly pointed out, but to little or no avail.

@toading you is an ultimately futile act, because sooner or later some
other minor is going to gain access, only they won't be found out until
it is too late...

...Then again, if FT and FM weren't catering to the "TS" crowd, this
_wouldn't_ be a problem.

--
Reply to: fayx...@maroon.tc.umn.edu

-- http://www.tc.umn.edu/nlhome/m279/fayxx001 --

"My mental facilities are TWICE what yours are -- you pea brain!"
-Percival McLeach


++++ Stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal! ++++
++++ if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig ++++
++++ more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm ++++


Peter da Silva

unread,
Mar 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/24/96
to
In article <4j3id7$g...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
scott goehring <sgoe...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:

>Timothy D Fay <fayx...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>>I'm not sure if your affidavit was strictly necessary, and I have to
>>question the timing of it as well.

>especially considering an old principle of witness credibility: "once
>a liar, always a liar." i forget the latin for it. he lied to furry.
>surely this leaves niggling doubts that he's lying to Congress, too...

He's a minor, and he asked a competant adult (his mother) for advice. A
cynical congressman is likely to consider that a remarkable level of
honesty for one of today's debauched youth.

David Green

unread,
Mar 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/24/96
to
In article <iZZ0kD...@cow.net>,

The COWZ Administratio <sys...@cow.net> wrote:
>nebu...@divcom.umop-ap.com (David Green) writes:
>
>> That's not why you were kicked off, and, if you are as intelligent as you
>> seem to be, you know it. Furry's Acceptable Use Policy states explicitly
>> that falsifying registration information is a punishable offense. The
>> *least* of the punishments listed for this offense is suspension from the
>> system, and this is the one you received.
>
>Now, all the rest of this hoo-hah aside (and most if it IS hoo-hah), I was
>just wondering as a wizard of TinyTIM:
>
>If deleting the guy off of your game was the *least* of the punishments,
>what are some of the *greater* punishments you could issue?

You didn't read the post very carefully, did you? He was not "deleted." I
made sure to point that out earlier. He was suspended. His character was
@newpassworded, to be restored access at some time in the future. Other
punishments include: @toading, and, in cases where it may be necessary,
reporting to site administrators or local authorities. I should also point
out that "falsifying information" was in a broad class of infractions of
the AUP, and, as such, some penalties may not be appropriate specifically
to it.

scott goehring

unread,
Mar 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/24/96
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <4j2kup$2...@bonkers.taronga.com>,


Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:

>The difference is that I'm withholding information rather than lying.
>
>Is that a significant distinction? Apparently.

yes; you are not lying to them in order to deceive them into believing
you are someone or something you are not. the other person being
discussed did. you are under no legal obligation to give them the
information they request, but giving them false information is
misrepresentation, which would invalidate any contractual obligation
(expressed or implied) that they have with you. if they choose to
enter into the contractual obligation without knowing your age (which
they appear to have done), then that's their choice.

i really don't see the point. what's-his-name lied to furry; he
even averred under oath that he lied to them. they suspended his
access as penalty. all very kosher. so what's all the shouting
about?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMVVMQBbgfSHT/piVAQGFpwQAkhR0ZCllgCDoPszOUT7aHwy3SJX/Jdcr
nSIIRXvYByFxb1Yhr/lM6pj7ItidD5sI0V1Tyvtd2T2QbAT8NdfSfU/xI8WtvFgO
EA0YBuT1Dv03WccFu6/nv+j6KdcLPm1VQhtO7bFjyUvFMHHRr7iBFJOfIobM06rq
JEd4YoFni8A=
=ddGg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

scott goehring

unread,
Mar 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/24/96
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <4j2tms$1...@epx.cis.umn.edu>,


Timothy D Fay <fayx...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> wrote:

>I'm not sure if your affidavit was strictly necessary, and I have to
>question the timing of it as well.

especially considering an old principle of witness credibility: "once
a liar, always a liar." i forget the latin for it. he lied to furry.
surely this leaves niggling doubts that he's lying to Congress, too...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMVVMzxbgfSHT/piVAQGWUgP7BapE6I2OOgTtQpf8/UtTkZJR3hxed3zr
zYRxucSy3rF2rqPfPO/7Q4GzPE1I7BXVNHfgQGh+ajfFzQnKPX3fOgKV+GNPCIn1
Gf/FEO07s3FD25smzIeBG/YB+CIjcmeE/7+W4g6DA9NA/ga3lo5GNRxrP2S1JFiy
uZcdHftcL4M=
=5Lyt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Matthew S. Schell

unread,
Mar 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/24/96
to
scott goehring wrote:
> especially considering an old principle of witness credibility: "once
> a liar, always a liar." i forget the latin for it. he lied to furry.
> surely this leaves niggling doubts that he's lying to Congress, too...

Where did congress come into this? The affidavit is being used in a federal case, not a
congressional hearing.

--
***************************************************************************
* ** Brought to you by: *
* "Is that it? Am I just another ** *
* yahoo in the end!?" ** S C H E L L C O . *
* ** Since 1977, the proud producer *
* -- Lemuel Gulliver ** of the finest me on earth. *
* Gulliver's Travels ** *
* ** Contact at: mss...@psu.edu *
***************************************************************************
Fire Lake WWW Server Homepage: http://mss175.rh.psu.edu/firelake.html
Fire Lake's Lion King Page: http://mss175.rh.psu.edu/lionking/lionking.html

Peter da Silva

unread,
Mar 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/24/96
to
In article <4j3i8i$g...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,

scott goehring <sgoe...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>i really don't see the point. what's-his-name lied to furry; he
>even averred under oath that he lied to them. they suspended his
>access as penalty. all very kosher. so what's all the shouting
>about?

It makes him an excellent poster boy for the CDA, so long as he follows
through on his civil disobedience and sits tight. FurryMuck didn't do
anything wrong. He did something wrong then made it an interesting case
by owning up to it on a legal document in a lawsuit.

I'm uneasy about this, of course, but it's certainly interesting.

Matthew S. Schell

unread,
Mar 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/24/96
to
The COWZ Administratio wrote:
>
> nebu...@divcom.umop-ap.com (David Green) writes:
>
> > That's not why you were kicked off, and, if you are as intelligent as you
> > seem to be, you know it. Furry's Acceptable Use Policy states explicitly
> > that falsifying registration information is a punishable offense. The
> > *least* of the punishments listed for this offense is suspension from the
> > system, and this is the one you received.
>
> Now, all the rest of this hoo-hah aside (and most if it IS hoo-hah), I was
> just wondering as a wizard of TinyTIM:
>
> If deleting the guy off of your game was the *least* of the punishments,
> what are some of the *greater* punishments you could issue?

There's a difference between SUSPENSION and DELETION. Suspension is only temporary, where as
deletion is permanent. Vulpine's character does still exist, its just been @newpassworded. I'd
imagine the wizards will let him back on once the CDA issue blows over. The thing is, the
wizards at FurryMUCK are against the CDA, just as we all are. However, there first
responsibility is to maintain the MUCK, not use it as a politcal statement. FurryMUCK only
exists due to the graces of a company who has been very nice in allowing it to run off their
connection. This Vulpine issue has in a sense made the MUCK a mjor target for the people who
support the CDA, as well as the national press. IT is quite possible the company will decide
that it doesn't want this kind of publicity, CDA or now CDA.

If the MUCK is shut down, it doesn't matter the reason, it means the supporters of the CDA have
one. Vulpines actions have put Furry in great danger. This may lead to Furry being shutdown
permanently. Considering this possibility, I can see why the wizards are trying to distance
themselves for him.

Dr. Cat

unread,
Mar 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/24/96
to
I would like to encourage everyone to look not just at the address that
points directly to Vulpine's affidavit, but rather to the page it's
linked from:

http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/teens.html

There are over 20 affidavits supporting the anti-CDA case on the ACLU's
web site, most of them from organizations like the Electronic Frontiers
Foundation, Journalism Education Association, Planned Parenthood,
Critical Path Aids Project, etc. The page I list above contains just the
affidavits from teenagers affected by the CDA. There were two when I
found it, now there's four. I think it's significant to notice that the
other three teenagers specifically mention having talked/written about
sexuality online, whereas Vulpine is the only one who did NOT do so. In
that regard I think his affidavit is the least potentially risky of all
of them. I'd encourage people to read Rheanna Parrenas's affidavit in
particular. I've sent her email asking whether either of the forums she
mentions or the online service they run on (AOL) have suspended or cancelled
her access, or taken any other disciplinary actions.

I'd like to STRONGLY encourage the wizards of FurryMUCK to set Vulpine's
official punishment to nothing stronger than six weeks suspension. Given
that he will be 18 at the end of that time, I feel that if protecting the
muck legally is the only motivation, that action would serve just as well
as toading would, and I really don't think he's done anything that calls
for something as severe as toading. Some might label his attempt to help
overturn the CDA as "well meaning but misguided" because of the way he
chose to go about it... But his motive is clearly not to attack the
mucks, but to attack the CDA. And he doesn't deserve to be lumped in
with past toaded characters who deliberately, repeatedly harassed other
characters, wrote viruses in MUF, and otherwise sought to disrupt the muck.
I'm very concerned that toading still remains a possibility here, and I
hope that won't happen.

I would also encourage the Furtoonia wizards to consider reinstating his
character there after six weeks. Again, if the only goal is to protect
Furtoonia, it would have been adequately served by the toading and later
reinstatement. I fear, however, that his toading there may have been
motivated by personal anger as well.

Wizards who set up and operate a muck have every right to make anger one
of the determining factors in their decisions. However, I feel wizards
that choose to try not to do that end up with a better muck for it.

Good luck, Vulpine, wherever you are. You meant well.

***********************************************************************
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions ** Come play DragonSpires!
******************************************** ftp.eden.com pub/dspire
Dragonspires is a graphic mud for PCs. ** has everything you need!
***********************************************************************
** http://www.realtime.net/~gauntlet/dspire.html for more info **
***********************************************************************

David G. Bell

unread,
Mar 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/24/96
to
In article <4j1mj8$l...@nntp1.best.com>
nebu...@divcom.umop-ap.com "David Green" writes:

> In article <DopJH...@granite.mv.net>, Tod T. Fox <vul...@gold.mv.net> wrote:
> >Apparently the affidavit I entered in the ACLU's federal court
> >challenge to the CDA has created an uproar. Before you judge my actions,
> >please take the time to read the actual affidavit, which can be found at
> >http://www.aclu.org/court/kit.html
>
> Done.
>

> >Unfortunately, the wizzes of both FT & FM have chosen to @toad me without
> >any notice or warning so I have been unable to speak for myself in either
> >of those forums.
>

> I can't speak for FurToonia at all, but I do know that, at Furry, your
> character has not been @toaded; merely @newpassworded. I'm not entirely
> certain what kind of speaking for yourself you wanted to do in those fora,
> but you could certainly have delivered any speeches you wanted to before you
> chose to falsify your information.

I think that is a very important distinction -- since the affidavit
claimed that Tod/vulpine/Kit was pretty close to 18 anyway I think
@toading would have been would have been going way too far. I'm glad
that it has been cleared up. But I'm not sure you should just let him
back on when he is over 18. In this case, I'd be inclined to ask for
some supporting evidence of his correct age.

Personally, I think he was an idiot to lie about his age, and then admit
to it in an affidavit. If he had been honest, he would have been locked
out of some areas for a month or so, and he wouldn't have left anything
for a hostile lawyer to get his claws into. The evidence of a self-
confessed liar, even under oath, is usually weakened in court, and it
was all for the point of a month or two...

OK, I can still just about remember when I was that age -- a couple of
months could feel like a really long time.

--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..

Robert Parish

unread,
Mar 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/25/96
to
This CDA crap is killing us all. Clearly we have on both sides of
this issue (Vulpine vs. FM & FT) good people doing bad things for good
reasons because they are stuck in a bad situation. But there is a
third side to this issue: bad (or at least ignorant) people in
Washington doing bad things for the wrong reasons. Let's not lose
sight of the fact that _THEY_ are the real enemy.

Who am I? Nobody. A newbie on FM. I should keep my mouth shut. But
if everyone kept their mouth shut, we lose, don't we?

Just my two cents worth...

---Robert "Four-eyes" Parish


Louisville, Kentucky USA
"Kentucky-- the Beer-Belly that Overhangs the Bible-Belt!"
text only hompage: http://www.iglou.com/members/rdparish.html


Richard Chandler

unread,
Mar 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/25/96
to

Consider this:

People have been bitching about FurryMuck adding the age policy. But if
they didn't do this, and if Vulpine hadn't done what he did, the ACLU
would not have this potentially valuable bit of ammunition against the
CDA. Usually people say "Of course the law is wrong, but I don't want to
be the test case." In this case, Vulpine WANTS to be part of the Test
case, and I applaud that, and I don't fault the FM wizzes for making it
possible.

--
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog... but they can tell right
off the bat if you're an idiot! -- Me
<a href="http://www.teleport.com/~mauser/"> Gallery Web Page </a>
Mail to <mau...@teleport.com> forwarded to <mau...@claris.com>

Peter da Silva

unread,
Mar 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/25/96
to
In article <4j6t51$n...@ni1.ni.net>, Kynn Bartlett <ky...@idyllmtn.com> wrote:
>By the way -- _are_ you comparing FurryMUCK to an adult BBS? I thought
>that for years the official wizard line has been that Furry isn't some
>sort of adult smut haven.

Yes. I can understand asking for age so you can block minors and conscientious
objectors out of the smut-haven areas... but refusing to let people *be*
conscientious objectors?

Perhaps I'll tell them I was born Sun Jan 3 13:00:03 CST 1993 . That's the
creation date on the Argent object. Yeh, that's the ticket. Is it against
the rules to pretend to be a minor?

Tobias Koehler

unread,
Mar 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/25/96
to
Dr. Cat (c...@eden.com) wrote:

: I would also encourage the Furtoonia wizards to consider reinstating his

: character there after six weeks. Again, if the only goal is to protect
: Furtoonia, it would have been adequately served by the toading and later
: reinstatement. I fear, however, that his toading there may have been
: motivated by personal anger as well.

Vulpine built an extensive area on FurToonia (of which I still
have a GIF map laying around somewhere). If the wizards there
had acted in a fair manner, they would have allowed him to
@archive that area (or @archive it for him), for porting to
another MUCK, and asked whether or not he would want it to stay
on FT. However the wizards of FurToonia have a reputation of
not respecting their users' intellectual property and (as you
say above) taking decisions motivated by personal anger. You
see why I left there long ago and won't come back until several
(not necessarily all) of the wizards there are exchanged.

Being @toaded on FurToonia is something to be proud of.

unci
--
tobias benjamin köhler ,-/o"O`--.._ _/(_
_,-o'.|o 0 'O o O`o--'. e\
un...@snowmeow.com (`o-..___..--''o:,-' )o /._" O "o 0 o : ._>
un...@tigerden.com ``--o___o..o.'' :'.O\_ ```--.\o .' `--
t.ko...@tu-bs.de `-`.,) \`.o`._
uk...@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de FL `-`-.,)

Jack Furlong

unread,
Mar 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/25/96
to
In article <DopJH...@granite.mv.net>,

vul...@gold.mv.net (Tod T. Fox) wrote:
>Apparently the affidavit I entered in the ACLU's federal court
>challenge to the CDA has created an uproar. Before you judge my actions,
>please take the time to read the actual affidavit, which can be found at
>http://www.aclu.org/court/kit.html
>
>Unfortunately, the wizzes of both FT & FM have chosen to @toad me without
>any notice or warning so I have been unable to speak for myself in either
>of those forums.
>
>For those of you don't know me, I was on FurToonia since shortly after it
>began, built several major areas there(Mythwood Forest,
>Furtoonia-Intergalactic Spaceport, parts of Vulpes Vale), and served a
>lengthy stint on its helpstaff.
>
>If someone had told me a year ago that I'd be kicked off for talking
>about how important the MUCKs are to me, I wouldn't have believed them.
>
>I believe it is important to fight the CDA rather than sticking our heads
>in the sand and hoping they won't notice us as they rape & pillage the 'net.

I went and read it...

I won't go into detail about WHY you were @toaded,
but you did _THAT_ to yourself, by your actions,
admitting to falsifying information.

The AUP of Furry required the Wizzes to do what they did.

***

As to your afidavit, far from "protecting" what you hold dear,
you've simply suceeded in bringing it into even _MORE_ danger
from the future enforcers of the CDA.

Up to this point, we could have HOPED they'd ignore MUCKS as being
beneath their notice, but you've suceeded in officially rubbing the
court's nose in the idea that they'll need to investigate MU*s.
( tho it's prolly naive to assume they _DONT_ know MU*s exist).

Personally, I don't hold up much hope the CDA will be overturned,
because there are far too many people pushing it that have axes
to grind, and too many $$$ behind them.

On another front, also note that in point 9 of your afidavit, you mention
"players interact within a fantasy environment based on the works of"
"Charles de Lint, John Crowley, and Mark Helprin."

Since you've now admitted to this in an official court document,
now you can expect all the media creators in the U.S. to start
investigating, to see what copyright infringements MU*s may be
doing, and start prosecuting for it.
( Remember the big explosion about Narnia MUCK? )

Thanks, Pal.

*SIGH*

**********************************************************
Jack Furlong - Journeyman Furry artist
HillBluffer on FurryMUCK, FurToonia, and FluffMUCK
http://www.cyberspy.com/~jfurlong/
Bearly Sane Studios - Po Box 9104 - Largo, Fla 34641-9104
"Normal Life? Who was he kidding?" Esther Friesner, Unicorn U

Timothy D Fay

unread,
Mar 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/25/96
to
In article <4j5nhk$5...@linda.teleport.com>, mau...@teleport.com says...

>
>People have been bitching about FurryMuck adding the age policy. But if
>they didn't do this, and if Vulpine hadn't done what he did, the ACLU
>would not have this potentially valuable bit of ammunition against the
>CDA. Usually people say "Of course the law is wrong, but I don't want to
>be the test case." In this case, Vulpine WANTS to be part of the Test
>case, and I applaud that, and I don't fault the FM wizzes for making it
>possible.

It seems to me that the people who are saying "of course the law is wrong,
but I don't want to be the test case" are the people who run FurryMUCK.
When Senator Exon says "jump" their response has been, "Through how many
hoops, sir?"

It is encouraging to see someone like Vulpine willing stand up for a
principle, first by resigning from FurToonia then by filing his
affidavit. I hate to see him go, especially since there are other
players on FM and FT who are of truly questionable character. Vulpine's
mistake, of course, is that he openly admitted to what he did. Even the
U.S. military seems more open and liberal than the MU*'s these days...

Again, I say to the "wizzes": If you _really_ want to avoid trouble,
then ban TS-ing. That will not only prevent you from getting in Dutch
with the "authorities," it'll also help clean up that image problem you
keep whining about (e.g., articles in WIRED, PLAYBOY and other magazines).
That would, however, be just as much of a capitulation to the undemocratic
forces behind the CDA. I would have a lot more respect for your actions
if you would not impose any restrictions and, like Vulpine, stand up to
Congress instead of applying useless and offensive half-measures to those
of us who are NOT part of the problem.

Kynn Bartlett

unread,
Mar 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/25/96
to
scr...@woof.net (Steve Stadnicki) wrote:
>It's worth noting that the information that FurryMUCK (and FurToonia) are
>asking for is comparable to, if not less than, what you'll be asked by your
>average ISP or adult BBS. We're not asking for much, folks... though with
>the history of the net, it's easy to understand how asking for anything
>will generate resistance.
>Steven Stadnicki/Shaterri
>scr...@woof.net

It is, however, a lot more than most MUDs ask for, and is a whole lot
more than what Furry has ever asked for in the past.

There's a difference between logging on an adult BBS for the first time
and giving your information, and a MUCK that's been up for 5.5 years
suddenly demanding information.

If I don't like the BBS's policies (or a new MUD's policies, or
whatever), I just don't have to play there. But if I've been playing
there for a long time -- in some cases, over 5 years, even -- I think
it's unfair to make me choose between my privacy and leaving the MUCK's
community entirely.

By the way -- _are_ you comparing FurryMUCK to an adult BBS? I thought
that for years the official wizard line has been that Furry isn't some
sort of adult smut haven.

--Lynn Onyx @ FurryMUCK


/\ /\ /\ /\ Kynn Bartlett / ky...@idyllmtn.com
/ \ / \ / \ / \
/ \ / \/ \ / \ Idyll Mountain Internet
/ \ //\ /\ \ / \ 110 E. Wilshire Ave / Suite G-10
/, ,\ // \ / \ \ /, ,\ Fullerton, CA 92632 / 714.526.5656
_| _ // \/ \____\ _| _ <URL:http://www.idyllmtn.com/idyllmtn/>


Bill Marcum

unread,
Mar 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/25/96
to

If the principle "once a liar, always a liar" is taken too literally,
there's no point in anybody testifying in court.

--
Bill Marcum bma...@iglou.com
"They're all lawyers, and think that the laws of physics can be amended with
a voice vote." -- Mary Shafer (sha...@ursa-major.spdcc.com) on Politicians

Tod T. Fox

unread,
Mar 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/26/96
to
David Green (nebu...@divcom.umop-ap.com) wrote:
: You didn't read the post very carefully, did you? He was not "deleted." I

: made sure to point that out earlier. He was suspended. His character was
: @newpassworded, to be restored access at some time in the future. Other

People keep repeating this as though it makes everything "hunky dorey."
Its not.

Nowhere in this process was I given official notification of eiter the FT
@toading or the FM suspension. I have not been told when or if I will get
my character back. An indefinite suspension is about the same as a @toading.

Tod T. Fox

unread,
Mar 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/26/96
to
scott goehring (sgoe...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: especially considering an old principle of witness credibility: "once
: a liar, always a liar." i forget the latin for it. he lied to furry.

: surely this leaves niggling doubts that he's lying to Congress, too...

If the ACLU thought my admission of my lying made me less credible, I
doubt they would have had me file an affidavit.

Oh, and its in federal court, not congress.

Tod

Gary Breuckman

unread,
Mar 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/26/96
to
In article <4j6q3l$m...@epx.cis.umn.edu>,

Timothy D Fay <fayx...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>
>It seems to me that the people who are saying "of course the law is wrong,
>but I don't want to be the test case" are the people who run FurryMUCK.
>When Senator Exon says "jump" their response has been, "Through how many
>hoops, sir?"
>
>It is encouraging to see someone like Vulpine willing stand up for a
>principle, first by resigning from FurToonia then by filing his
>affidavit.


That's not really a fair comparison, you should take into account what
each of them have at risk. Vulpine can easily stand up for his rights,
he's a minor and all he really has to lose is his access to Furry.
That's especially true since he hasn't done anything that would be in
violation of the new law.

The folks running furry have their livelihood and considerable financial
interests at risk. Further, while they may be striving (and appear to be
striving) to not violate the law, they could be found guilty of that if
the law is interpreted in a way to go against them, or some incident
should occur that is obviously in violation.

--
pu...@netcom.com

David Green

unread,
Mar 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/26/96
to
In article <Douqv...@granite.mv.net>, Tod T. Fox <vul...@gold.mv.net> wrote:
>David Green (nebu...@divcom.umop-ap.com) wrote:
>: You didn't read the post very carefully, did you? He was not "deleted." I
>: made sure to point that out earlier. He was suspended. His character was
>: @newpassworded, to be restored access at some time in the future. Other
>
>People keep repeating this as though it makes everything "hunky dorey."
>Its not.
>
>Nowhere in this process was I given official notification of eiter the FT
>@toading or the FM suspension. I have not been told when or if I will get
>my character back. An indefinite suspension is about the same as a @toading.

Well, I'm not condoning a lack of notification on either part, but.. if you
don't know, you might try asking. And, while it may not be "hunky dorey"
to you, you *did* knowingly commit an act that was against the MUCK policy
and then *admit it in a public document*. If you weren't prepared to
suffer the consequences, then you shouldn't have gone through with it. And
the fact that your character was only suspended on FurryMUCK *does* mean
that there is a possibility of your getting it back. Which, I might add,
could be significantly lessened if you make attacks on the MUCK for having
taken what actions it did (not that I am accusing you of such).

Your action caused a minor panic among the administrators of FurryMUCK, if
not FurToonia. Perhaps you can be understanding, if not forgiving, of this
fact.

gsutton

unread,
Mar 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/26/96
to
Tobias Koehler (uk...@rzstud2.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de) wrote:

: Vulpine built an extensive area on FurToonia (of which I still


: have a GIF map laying around somewhere). If the wizards there
: had acted in a fair manner, they would have allowed him to
: @archive that area (or @archive it for him), for porting to
: another MUCK, and asked whether or not he would want it to stay
: on FT. However the wizards of FurToonia have a reputation of
: not respecting their users' intellectual property and (as you
: say above) taking decisions motivated by personal anger. You
: see why I left there long ago and won't come back until several
: (not necessarily all) of the wizards there are exchanged.

: Being @toaded on FurToonia is something to be proud of.

: unci
: --
: tobias benjamin köhler ,-/o"O`--.._ _/(_
: _,-o'.|o 0 'O o O`o--'. e\
: un...@snowmeow.com (`o-..___..--''o:,-' )o /._" O "o 0 o : ._>
: un...@tigerden.com ``--o___o..o.'' :'.O\_ ```--.\o .' `--
: t.ko...@tu-bs.de `-`.,) \`.o`._
: uk...@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de FL `-`-.,)

Actually, everything Vulpine built still exists on FurToonia. Khaz
transferred it all over to me just minutes before Voop was toaded. I'm
planning on keeping everything the way it is in case he is allowed to
return (and I hope he can come back soon).

G. Sutton
Kitsap @ FurToonia/FurryMUCK/SPR

gsu...@kendaco.telebyte.com


Dr. Cat

unread,
Mar 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/26/96
to
Tod T. Fox (vul...@gold.mv.net) wrote:
: David Green (nebu...@divcom.umop-ap.com) wrote:
: : You didn't read the post very carefully, did you? He was not "deleted." I
: : made sure to point that out earlier. He was suspended. His character was
: : @newpassworded, to be restored access at some time in the future. Other

: People keep repeating this as though it makes everything "hunky dorey."
: Its not.

: Nowhere in this process was I given official notification of eiter the FT
: @toading or the FM suspension. I have not been told when or if I will get
: my character back. An indefinite suspension is about the same as a @toading.

The latest I've heard is that no decision has yet been made as to whether
the character will be toaded, or restored, or simply left @newpassworded.
It's still being discussed.

Steve Arlow

unread,
Mar 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/26/96
to
[Note: I'll wrap your lines so they are less than 80
characters long <pet peeve -- grrr...>, but I'm not
going to fix your improper homophones, too. :, ]

In article <3155A5...@psu.edu>,

Matthew S. Schell <mss...@psu.edu> wrote:
>If the MUCK is shut down, it doesn't matter the reason, it
>means the supporters of the CDA have one. Vulpines actions
>have put Furry in great danger. This may lead to Furry
>being shutdown permanently. Considering this possibility,
>I can see why the wizards are trying to distance themselves
>for him.

And inaction by all parties will only make that possibility
an eventual certainty. Give Vulpine credit for taking a
stand and suffering the consequences (even if he did whine
a bit when the consequences exceeded those he anticipated).

As for the wizards taking action, that is right and proper
and necessary -- now Vulpine has even *more* real harm to
show as a result of the CDA! This does not, IMHO, show any
lack of testicular fortitude on the part of the Muck admins;
rather, it is a necessary part of the process. Now he can
file an updated affidavit! :)

--
"Your dog stuffs his tongue up your nose. | Steve Arlow, Yorick Software
It's a good omen. You press on." | 39336 Polo Club Dr. #103,
-- Bernie E. Mireault, in _The JAM..._ | Farmington Hills, MI 48335
(.sig contest has been won) | http://www.msen.com/~yorick

Richard J. Bartrop

unread,
Mar 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/26/96
to

On 25 Mar 1996, Timothy D Fay wrote:

More on Vulpine, the CDA is bad, etc. etc.....


>
> Again, I say to the "wizzes": If you _really_ want to avoid trouble,
> then ban TS-ing. That will not only prevent you from getting in Dutch
> with the "authorities," it'll also help clean up that image problem you
> keep whining about (e.g., articles in WIRED, PLAYBOY and other magazines).
> That would, however, be just as much of a capitulation to the undemocratic
> forces behind the CDA. I would have a lot more respect for your actions
> if you would not impose any restrictions and, like Vulpine, stand up to
> Congress instead of applying useless and offensive half-measures to those
> of us who are NOT part of the problem.
>

Of course, demanding that _other_ people make sacrifices for your beliefs
get you no respect at all.

You want to defy the CDA? Why don't you start your own MUCK, and risk
your own equipment?

Richard Bartrop
writer/artist, "Zaibatsu Tears"
Part 3 appearing in Furrlough #40
Grey on FM, FT, TM, SPR

David G. Bell

unread,
Mar 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/26/96
to
In article <Douqv...@granite.mv.net> vul...@gold.mv.net "Tod T. Fox" writes:

> David Green (nebu...@divcom.umop-ap.com) wrote:
> : You didn't read the post very carefully, did you? He was not "deleted." I
> : made sure to point that out earlier. He was suspended. His character was
> : @newpassworded, to be restored access at some time in the future. Other
>
> People keep repeating this as though it makes everything "hunky dorey."
> Its not.
>
> Nowhere in this process was I given official notification of eiter the FT
> @toading or the FM suspension. I have not been told when or if I will get
> my character back. An indefinite suspension is about the same as a @toading.

_If_ this is true, I agree with you that it is wrong. All I've seen is
a clarification that you were not actually @toaded by FurryMuck, and I
can confirm that the character Vulpine is still intact on FM.

But not telling you by email is wrong.

Furtoonia do know your current email address?

Tobias Benjamin Koehler

unread,
Mar 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/26/96
to
Timothy D Fay (fayx...@maroon.tc.umn.edu) wrote:

> Again, I say to the "wizzes": If you _really_ want to avoid trouble,
> then ban TS-ing. That will not only prevent you from getting in Dutch
> with the "authorities," it'll also help clean up that image problem you
> keep whining about (e.g., articles in WIRED, PLAYBOY and other magazines).

How would you ban TS in practice? Write in the MOTD that TS does
not exist on FM, just like the German constitution states that
censorship does not exist? There is no way and no reason to
control what users do in their rooms.

(Of course, due to the decentral nature of IRC, it's even better
suited for TS, since you really can't blame any administrator
for what happens in the network....)

unci
--
tobias benjamin koehler ,-/o"O`--.._ _/(_
t.ko...@tu-bs.de _,-o'.|o 0 'O o O`o--'. e\
un...@tigerden.com (`o-..___..--''o:,-' )o /._" O "o 0 o : ._>
un...@snowmeow.com ``--o___o..o.'' :'.O\_ ```--.\o .' `--
uk...@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de `-`.,) \`.o`._
somewhere in central europe fL `-`-.,)

Jack Furlong

unread,
Mar 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/26/96
to
In article <4j4a9b$d...@boris.eden.com>, c...@eden.com (Dr. Cat) wrote:

[followup groups trimmed to furry]

[text snipped]

>I'd like to STRONGLY encourage the wizards of FurryMUCK to set Vulpine's
>official punishment to nothing stronger than six weeks suspension. Given
>that he will be 18 at the end of that time, I feel that if protecting the
>muck legally is the only motivation, that action would serve just as well
>as toading would, and I really don't think he's done anything that calls
>for something as severe as toading.

I agree with you there, and I rather suspect that will be the case.
By doing what he did, Vulpine forced the issue, and the FurryMUCK
wizards were forced to respond as they did by the AUP.

>I would also encourage the Furtoonia wizards to consider reinstating his
>character there after six weeks. Again, if the only goal is to protect
>Furtoonia, it would have been adequately served by the toading and later
>reinstatement. I fear, however, that his toading there may have been
>motivated by personal anger as well.

*Shrug*

Anything's possible.
People are people, after all. (furries or not)
I would hope that's not the case, tho.

>Good luck, Vulpine, wherever you are. You meant well.

Yes, he probably did, but I still think it was ill-advised
to file that affidavit.

Hanno Foest

unread,
Mar 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/26/96
to

In article <4j6q3l$m...@epx.cis.umn.edu> fayx...@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Timothy D
Fay) writes:

[...]


>Again, I say to the "wizzes": If you _really_ want to avoid trouble,
>then ban TS-ing.

How? This is way harder to enforce than the age policy. Unless you want to scan
everything being said on the MUCK for indecent keywords... '1984'? Oh well.

Hanno (Hurga @ FM)

Peter Torkelson

unread,
Mar 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/26/96
to
Peter da Silva wrote:
>
> In article <4j6t51$n...@ni1.ni.net>, Kynn Bartlett <ky...@idyllmtn.com> wrote:
> >By the way -- _are_ you comparing FurryMUCK to an adult BBS? I thought
> >that for years the official wizard line has been that Furry isn't some
> >sort of adult smut haven.
>
> Yes. I can understand asking for age so you can block minors and conscientious
> objectors out of the smut-haven areas... but refusing to let people *be*
> conscientious objectors?
>
> Perhaps I'll tell them I was born Sun Jan 3 13:00:03 CST 1993 . That's the
> creation date on the Argent object. Yeh, that's the ticket. Is it against
> the rules to pretend to be a minor?

It is against the rules to falsify registration information. Either way.
It's that clear. CDA or not, Vulpine knowingly lied to the wizards. He could
have chosen not to say anything at all, or to give his proper age and wait
a few weeks to get access under their rules.

Instead he chose to violate the agreement that he entered into with the
wizards of FurryMUCK. Regardless of if you agree with their rules or not,
it IS THEIR SYSTEM. And they have the right to run it in any way they feel
required to.

There are proper ways of challenging such laws that do not include breaking
the law. That is what our legal system is for. In fact the law IS in the
courts even now. There is NO excuse for pulling stunts like that when
apropriate steps are being taken, and look likely to fair well.

Whats next, break the law on murder becuse you don't personaly agree with it?
Sure, thats way extreem, but the point is, violating laws (incliding in the
case of Vulpine, fraud, which has nothing to do with the CDA) becuse you
feel them unjust, is not a way to protest them.

Courts, grass-root politics, letters to congresspeople (if you can call
them people), distributing litrature to make your case known, this is the
right thing to do.

Further, Vilpine sought to put FurryMUCK and it's wizards at risk, with
out their consent. This is like "outing" people of high profile in the
gay comunity to further "the cause". It is a discusting violation of those
people's rights. They have the right to do what they feel is "correct"
as much as Vulpine does. He should not be trying to strip them of their
rights any more than he feels that he is being stripped of his.


Yes, I'm rather hacked off about this, I am an admin myself, of systems,
BBSes, Mucks, done it all. And users that refuse to take the gift they are
getting and treat you with respect have alwase pissed me off. If you don't
like the way it's run, your welcome not to come back.

Jack Furlong

unread,
Mar 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/26/96
to
In article <Dot0I...@iglou.com>, rdpa...@iglou.com (Robert Parish) wrote:
>This CDA crap is killing us all. Clearly we have on both sides of
>this issue (Vulpine vs. FM & FT) good people doing bad things for good
>reasons because they are stuck in a bad situation. But there is a
>third side to this issue: bad (or at least ignorant) people in
>Washington doing bad things for the wrong reasons. Let's not lose
>sight of the fact that _THEY_ are the real enemy.
>
>Who am I? Nobody. A newbie on FM. I should keep my mouth shut. But
>if everyone kept their mouth shut, we lose, don't we?
>
>Just my two cents worth...

Nope, you said exactly what needed to be said, at the right time.
<grin>

Heather L. Garvey

unread,
Mar 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/26/96
to
Timothy D Fay <fayx...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>
>Again, I say to the "wizzes": If you _really_ want to avoid trouble,
>then ban TS-ing.

I'd like to see someone enforce that one. Run your MUSH with
full logging on some time (where everything they type show up in
the logs). You'd be amazed at the amount of really kinda sad sex
that goes on out there. [I don't log that much usually - this was
to track a suspect person's actions.]
Some people REALLY need to get laid by a physically present
human being. Probably for the first time, guessing by their warped
TS sessions. [Ok, this enters into my peeve about men pretending to
be women and not only playing a whore, but not a very realistic one.]
I can ban it in public, but beyond full logging (and scanning it
every day), I can't imagine being ABLE to enforce it in private. Too
many people consider this an integral and vital part of their online
experience.


--
Heather Garvey Play: h...@po.cwru.edu
Systems Administrator Work: gar...@cig.mot.com
http://www.cig.mot.com/~garvey


Mike Johannson

unread,
Mar 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/27/96
to
>Apparently the affidavit I entered in the ACLU's federal court
>challenge to the CDA has created an uproar. Before you judge my actions,
>please take the time to read the actual affidavit, which can be found at
>http://www.aclu.org/court/kit.html

Well, after reading through the affidavit on the ACLU server, and the
rest of this thread, I figured I would throw my two cents into the discussion.

First off, I was also a member of FurryMUCK before reaching adulthood,
though this was before the days of the CDA issue. I am no longer a minor, and
I do continue to use the MUCK to this day.

I'm not going to throw any sort of support behind the CDA, as I have
always believed it deserves none. What piqued my interest about this
discussion was the content of the affidavit itself. I do agree that at one of
seventeen, and certainly some younger people, are more than mature enough to
interact in an 'adult' environment. I certainly felt that way about myself
when I was 16 and 17, and looking back on those years, I still believe that I
was. Age is not an appropriate guage of maturity by any means. Having said
that, I'm not trying to say that all of FurryMUCK or Furtoonia (that latter of
which being a facility with which I have no experience) qualify as 'adult'
areas.

However, I really don't think the issue at hand has anything to do
with the maturity of Vulpine's player (which I do not question) and the
philosophical debate regarding age and maturity. What I do question is the
timing and the content of the affidavit.

Normally, I eschew idealism because of it's inherent flaws, but when
it comes to swearing declarations of age and the such, I believe that what
declaraction is given needs to be taken in faith - ideally, everyone would
tell the truth. I'm also not saying that I blame Vulpine for lying in his age
declaractions, because I may have done so if I were in his position.

The problem is, Tod, that you've given the 'honour system' a shot in
the head by declaring it impotent, and saying how easy it is to lie.
FurrMUCK's policy is created to legally protect its controllers rear-ends.
There's no reason one can blame them for that. The CDA's EXACT purpose is to
prevent minors for being exposed to adult communication/situations (and I'm
not saying that the CDA is philosophically correct in this regard, because i
_DO_ disagree with it). It's obviously understood that the lying about the
age put a minor in exactly the position that the CDA tries to defend against.
The majority of the arguments against the CDA involve the fact that it
compromises the right to lawful communication between adults. Unfortuately,
with the CDA in force, involving minors in this IS unlawful.

My point in this: Is there any reason to wonder why your characters
were @toaded (or @newpassworded or whatever, there seems to be some
discrepancy here)? You've put the 'MUCK and Furtoonia in precarious positions
by displaying exactly the kind of behavior the honour system is supposed to
defend against. When one lies about such things as one's age, the offense is
trivial if no one finds out. I hate to admit it, but the old addage "you
didn't do anything wrong if you don't get caught" applies here. I sympathize
with your situation, but I think the negative press your affidavit gave both
MUCK institutions, and the fire it puts behind the SUPPORT of the CDA should
have been considered before you went through with it. The first reply int his
thread says, in paraphrase, 'you brought this against yourself'. While I
think a little more sensitivity may be in order, I'm not going to disagree
with this comment. It's just a shame that it had to be brought against so
much else in the process.

Serious discussionary comments welcomed and appreciated.

Mike

All that aside, I wish you the best of luck, and look forward, for your sake,
to when your age comes into line with the maturity you already possess and you
no longer have to put up with this sort of problem.

Liz Bartlett

unread,
Mar 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/27/96
to
pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote:
>I am in a similar position, albeit less extreme, in that I am 35 years
>old but I refuse to "officially" certify that to Furry. As a result they
>won't let me have a new character, though for the time being they're
>not suspending my acces to my existing characters. The difference is
>that I'm withholding information rather than lying.

Now hold on a minute....

I understood that the only 'penalty' for not officially certifying
your age to the FurryMUCK admin was that you would then be unable to
enter certain 'adult' areas on the MUCK.

From what you've said above, it sounds as though if I do NOT certify
my age to the admin (and it's within spitting distance of your age),
then I will not be allowed any new characters, and access to my
existing ones might be endangered? Sounds a bit steep for merely
'withholding information' which they have no reason to need if I do
not want to access any of the 'adult' areas (which I don't, anyway).

Or is your "refusal to officially certify" your age something which
takes the form of actively annoying the hell out of the admin, so that
they are taking this action against you?

Do tell...

--Angiebabe, Tiggy, Grant, Qunici @ FurryMUCK

Electric Keet

unread,
Mar 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/27/96
to
gar...@tribble.cig.mot.com (Heather L. Garvey) broadcast the following
to millions of home viewers:

> Timothy D Fay <fayx...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
> >
> >Again, I say to the "wizzes": If you _really_ want to avoid trouble,
> >then ban TS-ing.

> I'd like to see someone enforce that one. Run your MUSH with

[snip snip]

> I can ban it in public, but beyond full logging (and scanning it
> every day), I can't imagine being ABLE to enforce it in private. Too
> many people consider this an integral and vital part of their online
> experience.

The grey 'roo blinks confusedly... "Why would a ban on TS reach so
far as the private realm? I mean, there are RL laws about sexual acts
in public, but nobody gives a care what's done in the privacy of one's
own home. Does this not apply to MUCKs as well? I get the feeling
that nobody in their right mind (or even a sick, twisted, Exon-ish
bible-thumping one) would try to enforce the CDA over a private
encounter. It's the "exposing oneself in the park" type of thing
they're tryin' to stop. The places where a "minor" could be witness
to it."

And with that, he rolls the "pattycake" scene from _Who Framed Roger
Rabitt?_, just to be silly. :)

___________
|| || Jason Tracer <tra...@umich.edu> * Electric Keet on Usenet
|| || "Freedom is no license for chaos." * Jason-Roo on FurryMUCK
\\_// || Home Page URL - http://www-personal.umich.edu/~tracerj/
|| "Four out of five people hate being surveyed..." - Electric Keet


Tobias Koehler

unread,
Mar 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/27/96
to
Vulpine states:

> I will turn 18 on April 29th, 1996.

Let me propose the following:

- Vulpine apologizes for the mistake in his age statement to
FurryMUCK
- The FurryMUCK administration replaces the wrong date he gave
by the one given above
- Any access restrictions to Vulpine's characters are eliminated
- Vulpine updates his affidavit
- alt.fan.furry.muck buries this thread
- Many persons will sleep better.

When SPR is back (Snoutie and Gud, do you listen?) I offer (as
usual) to invite all concerned parties for a cup of tea into my
cottage, to clear it all up and not to leave before all is
solved.

unci
--
tobias benjamin köhler ,-/o"O`--.._ _/(_

_,-o'.|o 0 'O o O`o--'. e\

un...@snowmeow.com (`o-..___..--''o:,-' )o /._" O "o 0 o : ._>
un...@tigerden.com ``--o___o..o.'' :'.O\_ ```--.\o .' `--

Karl Meyer

unread,
Mar 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/27/96
to
Dr. Cat (c...@eden.com) wrote:
: official punishment to nothing stronger than six weeks suspension. Given
: that he will be 18 at the end of that time, I feel that if protecting the
: muck legally is the only motivation, that action would serve just as well
: as toading would, and I really don't think he's done anything that calls
: for something as severe as toading. Some might label his attempt to help
: overturn the CDA as "well meaning but misguided" because of the way he
: chose to go about it... But his motive is clearly not to attack the
: mucks, but to attack the CDA. And he doesn't deserve to be lumped in
: with past toaded characters who deliberately, repeatedly harassed other
: characters, wrote viruses in MUF, and otherwise sought to disrupt the muck.
: I'm very concerned that toading still remains a possibility here, and I
: hope that won't happen.

Why shouldn't he be toaded? He lied about his age, then rather than keep
his yap shut and continue to enjoy the mucks he files a legal document
that not only discloses his lying but blindsides the very mucks he claims
to care about by naming them. He could have gotten by without doing so. My
own feeling was that he was taking yet another swipe at the wizzes for
daring to try to protect themselves from a law that, misguided and likely
unenforceable as it is, is still a law. The attempt to do so was intentionally
kept as unencumbering as possible to the players. If it were my livelyhood
on the line I might have considered requiring something such as a notorized
copy of a birth certificate be sent in. He was given exactly as much notice
of being toaded as he gave about the affidavit before publishing it. He also
didn't consider that by naming the mucks, he'd very possibly cause another
idiot infestation like what happened after that infamous Wired article.
As of the last I checked, guest characters are disabled on FT to help prevent
this from occuring. My own oppinion is that this is nothing more than a
childish attempt at revenge and an ego boost packaged into one. I hope the
wizzards on both mucks have the fortitude to stand by their rules and keep
him off to the extent they can do so. Civil disobedience has a penalty and
now he can just pay his.

Crim on FT, FM, SPR, FF, ....

Karl Meyer

unread,
Mar 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/27/96
to
Tobias Koehler (uk...@rzstud2.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de) wrote:

: Vulpine built an extensive area on FurToonia (of which I still
: have a GIF map laying around somewhere). If the wizards there
: had acted in a fair manner, they would have allowed him to
: @archive that area (or @archive it for him), for porting to
: another MUCK, and asked whether or not he would want it to stay
: on FT. However the wizards of FurToonia have a reputation of
: not respecting their users' intellectual property and (as you
: say above) taking decisions motivated by personal anger. You
: see why I left there long ago and won't come back until several
: (not necessarily all) of the wizards there are exchanged.

For what it's worth, his area is still intact and ownership handed
(for now) to his mate there. It's still possible for him to get an
archive of it and I'm sure that were he to formally ask, that it would
be destroyed (and a new area built almost imediately to take it's place).
You were booted for valid reasons and show that everytime you take a poke
at FT. Your area was deleted as you requested so quit playing the martyr.

You seem to feel that whether you come back or not is of vital importance
to FT. I'll assure you that the muck is growing quite nicely without you
there. I'm sure though that the wizzards you dislike will all gladly
@toad themselves so that you can walk in on a red carpet to the cheers
of the few who would have any idea of who you are. Sorry for the sarcasm
but your ego showed signs of reaching critical mass.