Vulpine's ACLU affidavit
Tod T. Fox
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
>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.
>
>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.
Steve Stadnicki
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
>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
> 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
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
>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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
>
> 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
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
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
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
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
>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
: 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
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
>
>any notice or warning so I have been unable to speak for myself in either
>of those forums.
>
>began, built several major areas there(Mythwood Forest,
>Furtoonia-Intergalactic Spaceport, parts of Vulpes Vale), and served a
>lengthy stint on its helpstaff.
>
>about how important the MUCKs are to me, I wouldn't have believed them.
>
>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
>
>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
>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.
>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
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
: 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
: 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
>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.
David Green
>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
: 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
Dr. Cat
: 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
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
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
> 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
> 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
[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
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
>
> In article <4j6t51$n...@ni1.ni.net>, Kynn Bartlett <ky...@idyllmtn.com> wrote:
> >that for years the official wizard line has been that Furry isn't some
> >sort of adult smut haven.
>
> 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
>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
>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
>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
>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
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
> 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
: official punishment to nothing stronger than six weeks suspension. Given
: muck legally is the only motivation, that action would serve just as well
: 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
: 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.
Karl Meyer
: 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.
The respect of the one and only Timothy D Fay? Well I'm sure that will
make all the difference. I'm sure they'll drop all they are doing to
make sure to gain your approval. Why trumpets might sound and horses
dance if they gained that........or maybe not.
Karl Meyer
: 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.
You were given the same notice that you gave them before filing a legal
document that effectively accuses them of breaking the CDA. It also
states that you lied about your age. You knew the consequences of doing
that. You were perfectly within your rights to file that affidavit and
join the fight against the CDA but you did so in a way that could end
up harming the mucks (and those running them). What did you expect to
happen? I'm sorry if you expected my wholehearted support for what you
did. I'm afraid I can't give it as it showed almost no consideration
for anyone you claim so vehemently to care about. What you lost is what
you risked losing for everyone who plays on those mucks should they
end up having to shut down. Sounds like a fair punishment to me. I don't
dislike you and hope to see you on some of the other mucks you're on. I do
think you were wrong in this instance though and thought you ought to know
that.
Mike Johannson
>document that effectively accuses them of breaking the CDA. It also
>states that you lied about your age. You knew the consequences of doing
>that. You were perfectly within your rights to file that affidavit and
>join the fight against the CDA but you did so in a way that could end
>up harming the mucks (and those running them). What did you expect to
>happen? I'm sorry if you expected my wholehearted support for what you
>did. I'm afraid I can't give it as it showed almost no consideration
>for anyone you claim so vehemently to care about. What you lost is what
>you risked losing for everyone who plays on those mucks should they
>end up having to shut down.
While I wasn't quite so direct in my previous post, this was what I
was trying to get at it. I'd have to say that I whole-heartedly agree. The
world has never been a fair place. It only works when you grit your teeth and
play by the unwritten rules.
Mike
I still sympathize with Tod's situation, but I think that any caught
in one like it really has to consider their planned actions carefully - for
what's best for themselves _AND_ everyone else.
Timothy D Fay
>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?
If I had the resources I would, if only because I'm getting real tired
of all this paranoid nonsense on the part of both the "wizzes" and the
players. And I'm not asking anyone to face anything that I wouldn't or
haven't faced already. But while I can sympathize with their concerns,
I think their worries are, for the moment, completely unjustified.
But I'll say _AGAIN_ that *IF* they really want to avoid any trouble,
then they should shut down _all_ the TS-ing that goes on at FurryMuck
and FurToonia. Booting Vulpine and forcing "@age" programs on the rest
of us will not protect you -- assuming that all these "concerns" are not
part of some neurotic fantasy, and the Feds really are out to "get" FM/FT.
--
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 ++++
Jay Brazier
>
>[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.
Here here. I am amazed at the way people seem to take
Vulpine's affidavit as some sort of attack on the MUCKs
themselves. The real threat is and always has been the CDA,
and hiding one's head in the sand won't lessen any threat to
the existence of the MUCKs. Quite the contrary.
> 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).
Kudos to Vulpine.
Gary Breuckman
>
>I'd like to STRONGLY encourage the wizards of FurryMUCK to set Vulpine's
>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
You have, I think, lost sight of WHY he was toaded - NOT for "attacking"
the muck, NOT for attacking the CDA, but FOR falsifying his age
information AND also for proclaiming VERY loudly afterwards that he had
done so.
Gary Breuckman
>
>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
The one has nothing to do with the other... Existing characters (so far)
continue to exist without any changes and without being certified as
either adult or non-adult.
However the current policy says that requests for NEW characters MUST
include the birthdate. This is true whether you have existing characters
or not, and whether you are adult or not.
Terry_Knight
>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).
And just how the _hell_ are the wizzes supposed to do _that_? Considering
that a fair percentage of it would go on in private rooms... that's
about as unpolicable as this whole CDA is.
>That would, however, be just as much of a capitulation to the undemocratic
>forces behind the CDA.
True. And about as workable.
>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.
I fail to see what's so offensive about an _age statement_. Granted, it's
a nuisance, but it's a _minor_ nuisance. By _email_... you don't even
have to post a copy of passport or other documentation (which WOULD be
a pain, especially from down here). And you don't have to give a statement
if you don't want to. It's your call.
--
Terry Knight (MayFurr on FurryMUCK) | may...@vixen.southern.co.nz
=======================================================================
"But starting from the other end you had an animal with everything
an animal should have... and added to all these, as though Paradise
had never been lost and earliest dreams were true, the charm of
speech and reason" - C.S. Lewis
Dr. Cat
: Further, Vilpine sought to put FurryMUCK and it's wizards at risk, with
: out their consent.
I can't let this statement stand without comment. It makes a
strong assumption about Vulpine's motives, which may simply be untrue.
Motive does not relate to the issue of whether a person is innocent or
guilty of a particular transgression. They did it, or they didn't do it,
regardless of their reasons. And I don't dispute for one moment that
Vulpine is guilty of breaking the rules on FurryMUCK and Furtoonia by lying.
Motive can, however, be very relevant in determining the severity of
punishment for a guilty party. Our society generally feels that someone
who intended harm deserves stronger punishment than someone who meant
well but caused harm through misunderstanding, carelessness, or simply by
accident.
And it's the severity of Vupline's punishment that concerns me most. A
lot of people seem to be so angry they just want everyone to agree with
them that Vulpine did a very bad thing, or that he deserves to be
punished, or whatever, and they aren't concerned about whether his
punishment ends up being harsher than he deserves.
In Vulpine's mind, was he seeking deliberately to endanger FurryMUCK and
Furtoonia out of anger, as some have accused him of? Or was he seeking
solely to work against the CDA, with any risk his actions might cause to
others being an undesired side effect?
The most telling factor for me is the fact that he made no mention at all
of sexual activities or discussions in the MUCKs in his affidavit. If he
sought to cause them harm, clearly he could have been more damaging had
he done so, and presumably he would have. The fact that he didn't do it
suggests an awareness that such mention might put the mucks at more risk,
and a desire to minimize that risk.
Could he have avoided mentioning lying about his age too? Sure. And
that would have reduced the risk still further. But the fact that he
tried to reduce the risk at all suggests to me it might be more fair to
accuse him of underestimating that risk, or of acting too hastily without
consulting the other parties involved, than to accuse him of acting out
of malice.
I do not think Vulpine acted out of malice. And I don't think the
severity of his punishment should be as harsh as the punishment would be
for someone who DID act out of malice.
And you know, before you accuse someone of acting with malicious intent,
in a public forum that they happen to be participating in... You COULD
just ask him. If he explains his motives and you think he's lying, then
go ahead and say how and why. But to presume malice based solely on the
effect of actions, without evidence of intent... That's pretty rude.
Kitsuné
> 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.
Anyone but me see this as not being 'malicious intent' rather than merely
sloppy communication skills? Ok, if anyone is caring to read this in this
already saturated thread, just give him fair warning that his character
will be returned to him when he turns 18 (or WHENEVER!) with a warning!
Vulpine has apparently been an importaint member of the Furry MUCKing
community, and to do this without notification or communication is just
plain rude!
Ok, that's my two cents!
Suggestions?
_To the Wizzes_: Make up for the sloppy communications with an official
statement to him at LEAST, telling him the situation without the
rumour-mongoing that breeds like Lag-beasts here on the AFF section! We
understand you are all volunteer over-worked people, and we truely
understand
_To Vulpine_: You should be more discreet in your dealings. Although you
have been apparently wronged, you did act foolishly. Next time talk to the
Wizzes first. Please, for your sake, don't make this any worse. I hope to
see you when your character returns!
My appologies to any paws on which I may have tread.
--
Until the Next Turn!
Kitsuné
Platinum on FurryMUCK & FurToonia
--Artist for Hire! Will work, PERIOD!--
dr...@compusmart.ab.ca _OR_ ara...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca _OR_ Jonathan...@ums.supernet.ab.ca
Homepage: http://www.compusmart.ab.ca/droth/kitsune.html
Peter da Silva
>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.
No, I disagree. I believe that civil disobedience like that may well be
appropriate. *But* you shouldn't then turn around and whine when you're
caught and sanctioned. Particularly when it's a gift horse you're examining
the dentition of.
And Vulpis wasn't breaking the law. He was violating a contract. It's not
quite the same thing.
Peter da Silva
>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.
For existing characters, yes.
>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,
Yes.
>and access to my existing ones might be endangered?
If I implied that I apologize. That is not, as far as I know, the case.
>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?
No. I simply refrained from sending the information, and politely said "no,
I won't fill that in, but I do understand why you're doing it and won't
send you whiney mail if you insist" when they asked for it explicitly.
Don't mistake me. They have the right to require any information they want
from their users. I just wish they would bend a little on this.
Tod T. Fox
[snip]
: philosophical debate regarding age and maturity. What I do question is the
: didn't do anything wrong if you don't get caught" applies here. I sympathize
: MUCK institutions, and the fire it puts behind the SUPPORT of the CDA should
: have been considered before you went through with it.
A whole lot of people seem to be saying this. I'd like one of you out
there to back it up with an exact quote from my affidavit.
Where in my affidavit do I say anything that suggests that there is
pornography on the MUCKs or anything else to induce the Fed feeding
frenzy so many of you seem to think is coming because of this?
The only place I talk about indecencies in detail is the part where I
talk about the King Arthur scholars email list. As Dr. Cat has pointed
out, other ACLU affidavits are a potentially a lot more damaging for the
services they discuss than mine is for the MUCKs. Go read Rheana
Parennas' affidavit, or the one by Brock Meeks.
I'm not the enemy, the CDA is. But if either FT or FM get shut down, it
won't the Feds. It'll be the wizzes getting frantic and overworked about
nothing. People have been accusing me of "illusions of grandeur" but I
think the wizzes need to be reminded that furries are really a very
small, and pretty unknown, part of the larger 'net community.
Vulpine
--
'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)*
Tobias Koehler
Karl Meyer (fer...@wwa.com) wrote:
: 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.
I left for valid reasons, and FT shows it every time I fail to
ignore it. I never received a confirmation of FT ceasing to use
my creations. Not that I would care. I only take my liberty to
warn others not to make the same mistakes.
: 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.
You like flaming, don't you? Hurting others, so much fun. Whee.
See, I like flaming too some time, and when I flame FT, I can
be sure that it hurts no one important. Others have other
punching-balls. Watch Spiegel-TV some time, it is such fun as
they use the same strategy. :) FT is shortly before collapsing,
but is so since it exists, and will probably continue for the
years to come. Whether something lasts or not is no sign of
quality or lack of it. Some MUCKs are just mure fun to flame
than others, and there are many who agree with me in that. (I
wouldn't ever dare to flame Brazilian Dreams, even though I
don't agree with a couple of things there, which, however, I
am able to ignore quite well.)
Whoever wants to meet me knows where to find me. Not that FT's
existence is of any importance to the online community.
Tod T. Fox
: 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.
: Thanks, Pal.
: *SIGH*
What will I get blamed for next? Global Warming?
If you read carefully you will note that that paragraph actually had
nothing to do with the furry.mucks. It concerns a small MUSH named Urban
Legends on whichh all but one character are pretty much human. I'm on
staff there, we've been very careful about only taking general influences
and ideas from those works and never actual copyrighted material.
Tod
Tod T. Fox
: 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"
I did ask. I sent email to the FurryMUCK wizzes last Saturday, March
23rd at 9:43 pm. I asked them for an oppurtunity to discuss this matter
with them, and asked for some information on how the decision process
would be carried out. It is now 10:35 am on Thursday, 3/28 and I have
gotten no response.
: 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).
If the wizzes expect me to get down on my knees and beg forgiveness, they
have another thing coming. I have very little respect for anyone who has
behaved in such a shallow and spineless manner.
: 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.
No, I'm afraid I can't. My affidavit is really pretty damn tame. I
continue to be amazed that so many people are so wildly worked up about
all this.
Vulpine
Tod T. Fox
: 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
I'm afraid that after reading four posts in a row by Mr. Meyer, all of
which were snide, obnoxious, and holier-than-thou, I'd have to say he's
the only one around here acting childish or egotistical.
Tod
Kim
>Mike Johannson (erh...@can.net) wrote:
>[snip]
>: philosophical debate regarding age and maturity. What I do question is the
>: timing and the content of the affidavit.
>[snip]
>: 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.
>[snip again]
>
>A whole lot of people seem to be saying this. I'd like one of you out
>there to back it up with an exact quote from my affidavit.
The fact that you proved and rubbed folks noses in the fact that the
wizzes believed you when you lied about your age is bad. It implies
that the MUCKs are unable to police themselves or deal with the presence
of minors on the net on their own. (Or at least ones that delibertly
falsify information.) This is negative.
(I can see the pro-CDA forces now ... "Look at this affidavit! Any
child out there could claim they were adults and get into adult areas -
they don't check! We need to make sure that they have to check ages,
just like liquor stores - we need laws about this!" The negativity
is not, in my mind, directly about the content on FurryMUCK.)
BTW, out of curiousity, did you ever consider having your mother email
the wizzes of the MUCKs and ask about allowing you to be considered an
adult, or at least try?
>Where in my affidavit do I say anything that suggests that there is
>pornography on the MUCKs or anything else to induce the Fed feeding
>frenzy so many of you seem to think is coming because of this?
Not just the Fed feeding frenzy, but a generallized press feeding
frenzy would be a nightmare.
>The only place I talk about indecencies in detail is the part where I
>talk about the King Arthur scholars email list. As Dr. Cat has pointed
>out, other ACLU affidavits are a potentially a lot more damaging for the
>services they discuss than mine is for the MUCKs. Go read Rheana
>Parennas' affidavit, or the one by Brock Meeks.
If the MUCKs did not have adult material, why do you need an age statement?
There must be material on the MUCKs that are for adults only, then. What
material is suitable only for adults? Go figure.
As might be pointed out before, other services get paid for their time
and efforts. If folks around here who thought that the wizzes are doing
the wrong thing in not standing up more were willing to cough up $$$$$$
for legal fees for the wizzes and the owners of the machines that the MUCKs
run own, I would be more sympathetic to this claim.
>I'm not the enemy, the CDA is. But if either FT or FM get shut down, it
>won't the Feds. It'll be the wizzes getting frantic and overworked about
>nothing. People have been accusing me of "illusions of grandeur" but I
>think the wizzes need to be reminded that furries are really a very
>small, and pretty unknown, part of the larger 'net community.
Hmmm. I do not think I have seen any 'illusions of grandeur', just lack
of planning. I think people need to be reminded that the wizzes do not
do this because they are getting paid, or even want to. (Hell, I do not
even see any 'Thanks to such-and-such ISP for letting us run Furry here.)
I think people need to be reminded that they (as yet) do not have any
:right: to the Internet or MUCKs. (Freedom of speech is not the same as
the right to use other equipment to make yourself heard.) The wizzes
that I have seen are mostly overworked in RL already, never mind the MUCK.
(How many folks here who have run or currently run a BBS or ISP think
the wizzes acted incorrectly, BTW?) It still would have been better to
at least warn them you were painting a bull'seye on them first.
Actually, I would consider myself lucky that I still had an internet
account, if I was you. Some Terms of Service or Acceptable Use Policies
on some ISP's would undoubtedly cover use of their services for fraud
or purposely deceptive information, or theft of services from others.
Kim
D.M. Quozl Falk
: In article <DoyL5...@granite.mv.net>, Tod T. Fox <vul...@gold.mv.net> wrote:
: >Mike Johannson (erh...@can.net) wrote:
: >[snip]
: >: philosophical debate regarding age and maturity. What I do question is the
: >: timing and the content of the affidavit.
: >[snip]
: >: 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.
: >[snip again]
: >
: >A whole lot of people seem to be saying this. I'd like one of you out
: >there to back it up with an exact quote from my affidavit.
: The fact that you proved and rubbed folks noses in the fact that the
: wizzes believed you when you lied about your age is bad. It implies
: that the MUCKs are unable to police themselves or deal with the presence
: of minors on the net on their own. (Or at least ones that delibertly
: falsify information.) This is negative.
Agreed.
: (I can see the pro-CDA forces now ... "Look at this affidavit! Any
: child out there could claim they were adults and get into adult areas -
: they don't check! We need to make sure that they have to check ages,
: just like liquor stores - we need laws about this!" The negativity
: is not, in my mind, directly about the content on FurryMUCK.)
Also agreed.
: BTW, out of curiousity, did you ever consider having your mother email
: the wizzes of the MUCKs and ask about allowing you to be considered an
: adult, or at least try?
This is why when some people offer something for more mature enjoyment,
if your under age, you have to get a signature from either a parent or
legal guardian...
: >Where in my affidavit do I say anything that suggests that there is
: >pornography on the MUCKs or anything else to induce the Fed feeding
: >frenzy so many of you seem to think is coming because of this?
: Not just the Fed feeding frenzy, but a generallized press feeding
: frenzy would be a nightmare.
Remember just how sensationalistic media people are- Give them a juicy
tidbit and they bite HARD....
: >The only place I talk about indecencies in detail is the part where I
: >talk about the King Arthur scholars email list. As Dr. Cat has pointed
: >out, other ACLU affidavits are a potentially a lot more damaging for the
: >services they discuss than mine is for the MUCKs. Go read Rheana
: >Parennas' affidavit, or the one by Brock Meeks.
: If the MUCKs did not have adult material, why do you need an age statement?
: There must be material on the MUCKs that are for adults only, then. What
: material is suitable only for adults? Go figure.
A logical, and true, assumption...
[...]
: >I'm not the enemy, the CDA is. But if either FT or FM get shut down, it
: >won't the Feds. It'll be the wizzes getting frantic and overworked about
: >nothing. People have been accusing me of "illusions of grandeur" but I
: >think the wizzes need to be reminded that furries are really a very
: >small, and pretty unknown, part of the larger 'net community.
Gee, considering your tirades here on a.f.f. and .m. about how FM and FT
are forcing minors such as yourself out of adult areas, you shouldn't
expect sympathy... In fact, between your tirades and your affidavit, I
can fully understand why others *are* suspicious of your motives!
: Hmmm. I do not think I have seen any 'illusions of grandeur', just lack
: of planning. I think people need to be reminded that the wizzes do not
: do this because they are getting paid, or even want to. (Hell, I do not
: even see any 'Thanks to such-and-such ISP for letting us run Furry here.)
: I think people need to be reminded that they (as yet) do not have any
: :right: to the Internet or MUCKs. (Freedom of speech is not the same as
: the right to use other equipment to make yourself heard.)
In a way, it does: the machines are the VR equivilant of podiums, and
they ARE here for others to speak their peace... The CDA seeks to
effectively deny that right. (First Amendment: Freedom of Assembly;
Freedom of Speech)
: The wizzes
: that I have seen are mostly overworked in RL already, never mind the MUCK.
: (How many folks here who have run or currently run a BBS or ISP think
: the wizzes acted incorrectly, BTW?)
Having been a co-sysop of a BBS with adult areas, I think the wizzes
acted not only properly, but to the very letter of the contract, to wit:
the wizzes may take appropriate action WITHOUT WARNING if the terms of
the contract are violated. Vulpine violated the contract, he got
suspended (but not removed) without warning, as per contract.
: It still would have been better to
: at least warn them you were painting a bull'seye on them first.
Considering past behaviour, what has happened not only didn't surprise
me, but should've been expected. Couched as an affidavit against the CDA
(using the CDA as defense, no less), the affidavit served as nothing more
than another attack by Vulpine against the two MU*s in question.
: Actually, I would consider myself lucky that I still had an internet
: account, if I was you. Some Terms of Service or Acceptable Use Policies
: on some ISP's would undoubtedly cover use of their services for fraud
: or purposely deceptive information, or theft of services from others.
As is the case with Netcom's own contract...
....Quozl!
--
Presidential Candidate for the Third Millenium! Quozl for Prez in 2000!
Dennis M. Falk, aka "Quozl Mephit" : 221 Huntoon St. Eureka, CA 95501-4115 USA
Writer, Furry fan, Cartoon fan, Music lover : "A Novel Experience!"
Skunks, skunks, skunks! : Tiny Toons forever! : Snapple me!
Kim
D.M. "Quozl" Falk <qu...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Kim (book...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: I think people need to be reminded that they (as yet) do not have any
>: :right: to the Internet or MUCKs. (Freedom of speech is not the same as
>: the right to use other equipment to make yourself heard.)
>
>In a way, it does: the machines are the VR equivilant of podiums, and
>they ARE here for others to speak their peace... The CDA seeks to
>effectively deny that right. (First Amendment: Freedom of Assembly;
>Freedom of Speech)
"In a way", yes. Bluntly, no. If Internet access was a government
supported 'right', we would have subsidized Internet access for low-income
groups, universal service type regulations, probably definitive common
carrier status for ISPs, etc. As an innumerable amount of folks have
to be reminded at times, just because you pay for an account on one
machine does NOT give you any 'right' to put or access data on a machine
you do not pay for access to - when someone else lets data flow through
their systems at your request, unless you have an explicit contract with
them, they are doing it because cooperation benefits the whole. There
is no explicit obligation on their part to do anything for you. If I
were to refuse traffic from or to you across my network, I am not aware
of anything you could do, because it is a privately owned network -
As the saying goes "My ball, my rules." and, following from that
"My responsibility."
If it was a 'right', it would be "My ball, government rules, your
responsibility." Heck, if Internet access was a 'right', the CDA
would never have gotten this far, the MU*s would not have to worry
as much about liability, and 95% of the ISPs would go out of business.
As to whether Internet access *should* be a right, or as to how ISPs
decide to try to map the Bill of Rights onto their service contracts
with their customers, or all the rest, is another topic.
Internet access is not a (legally accepted) right. Period. It is
still a *privately run* business. (Common carrier status has NOT been
:officially: stated for Internet carriers last I knew, and if it has
I would dearly love to know about it.) Otherwise, all would be run
according to government regulations/guidelines to insure that no one's
rights were being violated.
Anyways, this is straying a little off-topic. The final question that is
bugging me is -
Did Vulpine plan to write an affidavit before or after he lied?
Kim
Victry Vixy Hyzenthlay
> Tod T. Fox (vul...@gold.mv.net) wrote:
>
> : 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.
>
>
WOA... hold the cart RIGHT here! I see *somneone* hasn't taken the time to read
Vulpine's affadavit... Karl? If you had, you'd know that he (Vulpine) never
accused the mucks of breaking the CDA (either effectively, through your own
biased interpretation, or directly). He simply points out that by forcing the
mucks to enforce the CDA, his own, as well as everyone elses, individual rights
and freedom on the MUCKS are being unfairly and unconstitutionally removed, thus
showing how the CDA is unjust and unconstitutional. What you are stating is your
own interpretation of what you've *heard* and nothing more than 'Male Bovine Feces.'
I had a gut-full of that kind of nonsense on The Lion King MUCK and it was incredibly
distasteful there. I definately won't stand by and watch it here. So for you, and
anyone who hasn't read Vulpine's affadavit yet, before you go around making false
accusations, please get informed first. It is at...
http://www.aclu.org/court/kit.html
==***==
======================== ========================
+ Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay: Freelance Technofox. +
+ Specializing in in-space mods, upgrades and retrofits. +
+ ==***== +
+ Optional 'NO questions' for a *modest* extra fee. ;> +
+ ==***== +
+ "Satisfaction guaranteed... if yer not satisfied... +
+ >>grin<< we'll *negotiate* till you are." ;> +
=========================================================
+ "'Course I'm legit... just *ask* me!" :> +
+ ==***== +
+ "I do NOT wear a blaster... it's uhhh... a cuttin' +
+ torch, yea. Y'know... I *AM* a Technofox." ;> +
+ ==***== +
+ "Soooo... do you prefer my tail... down?... +
+ >>wry-grin<< Or up?" ;> +
=========================================================
___________________
| Vivacious Vixen II| _
,--,___ | - - - - - - - - - | |_\___
|""| |\-| - - - - - - - - - |-/| |__|\
|--| |=========================| ____|_)
`--`--\|http://www.cris.com/~Vixy|/
"|"""""""|"""""|"""""""|"
======= =======
Tod T. Fox
: And you know, before you accuse someone of acting with malicious intent,
: just ask him. If he explains his motives and you think he's lying, then
: go ahead and say how and why. But to presume malice based solely on the
: effect of actions, without evidence of intent... That's pretty rude.
If the wizzes had just given me a chance to answer some of their
concerns, perhaps a lot of this mess could have been avoided?
Just so everyone knows, an update on what has happened is going to be
added to the section of the ACLU website about me shortly. Netly News is
also planning a story on this, either tonite or sometime next week. As I
understand it, though I have not seen the story, the reporter talked to
the wizzes of both MUCKs as well as myself and my mother.
Vulpine
Peter Torkelson
>
> Peter Torkelson (pet...@fur.com) wrote:
> : Further, Vilpine sought to put FurryMUCK and it's wizards at risk, with
> : out their consent.
>
> I can't let this statement stand without comment. It makes a
> strong assumption about Vulpine's motives, which may simply be untrue.
May, but I think I have sufficent evendence to form the opinion I have from
his own postings to this forum.
> Motive does not relate to the issue of whether a person is innocent or
> guilty of a particular transgression. They did it, or they didn't do it,
> regardless of their reasons. And I don't dispute for one moment that
> Vulpine is guilty of breaking the rules on FurryMUCK and Furtoonia by lying.
Yes, he is guilty of knowingly falsifying information to gain access to
a computer system, namely FurryMUCK and Furtoonia. I believe that not only
is this a violation of the AUP of the two mucks, but also a violation of
US Criminal code.
> Motive can, however, be very relevant in determining the severity of
> punishment for a guilty party. Our society generally feels that someone
> who intended harm deserves stronger punishment than someone who meant
> well but caused harm through misunderstanding, carelessness, or simply by
> accident.
He performed this action knowing perfectly well what he was doing.I don't
think that "carelessness" or "misunderstanding" came into it. He spoke
to his mother, by his own admission, and discussed the falsifying of
said information. It was premeditated.
He further compounded this by making a public statment that FurryMUCK's
adult policy meant nothing in a document presented before not just the
courts, but the Justice Department.
If he was not aware of the potential ramifications of THAT he is cearly
not as smart as people have been giving him credit for being.
Further, with his protests of Furry's attempt to protect themselfs, and
all but demands for them to "stand up to the CDA", he aparently outright
distains their position. He has made quite clear a total disregard for
their dangerous position.
> And it's the severity of Vupline's punishment that concerns me most. A
> lot of people seem to be so angry they just want everyone to agree with
> them that Vulpine did a very bad thing, or that he deserves to be
> punished, or whatever, and they aren't concerned about whether his
> punishment ends up being harsher than he deserves.
So far FurryMUCK's reaction has been very very relaxed, suspending his
character.
> In Vulpine's mind, was he seeking deliberately to endanger FurryMUCK and
> Furtoonia out of anger, as some have accused him of? Or was he seeking
> solely to work against the CDA, with any risk his actions might cause to
> others being an undesired side effect?
I personaly think he has been made well aware of the risks, and he simply
does not care who he endangers to acomplish his cause. I will not say that
I believe he is doing this to solely put these people at risk, but I find
it very hard to belive that he does not KNOW what he is doing.
> The most telling factor for me is the fact that he made no mention at all
> of sexual activities or discussions in the MUCKs in his affidavit. If he
> sought to cause them harm, clearly he could have been more damaging had
> he done so, and presumably he would have. The fact that he didn't do it
> suggests an awareness that such mention might put the mucks at more risk,
> and a desire to minimize that risk.
Telling that he is not trying to hurt FurryMUCK, or that he does not care
that he is using it as a political tool to his ends? Further, I don't think
this shows ANYTHING, as the ACLU would not take an affidavit with lots
of mentions of sex, since that would undermine their case.
> Could he have avoided mentioning lying about his age too? Sure. And
> that would have reduced the risk still further. But the fact that he
> tried to reduce the risk at all suggests to me it might be more fair to
> accuse him of underestimating that risk, or of acting too hastily without
> consulting the other parties involved, than to accuse him of acting out
> of malice.
Woah! Speaking about making assumptions about motivations boys and girls,
here we, when it suits you, assume that he "tried to reduce the risk" as
why he didn't mention sex on furry. There is NO evidence supporting this,
even less than the theory that he does not care about the risks of the
furry administrators, which he has displayed a constant disregard for
in this newsgroup.
> I do not think Vulpine acted out of malice. And I don't think the
> severity of his punishment should be as harsh as the punishment would be
> for someone who DID act out of malice.
So your goning to make your own assumptions about his motives here, too?
After flaming me for doing so about his motives?
> And you know, before you accuse someone of acting with malicious intent,
> in a public forum that they happen to be participating in... You COULD
> just ask him. If he explains his motives and you think he's lying, then
> go ahead and say how and why. But to presume malice based solely on the
> effect of actions, without evidence of intent... That's pretty rude.
Thats also not what I am doing, it is baised off his own words in this
forum, as I said above. And he HAS a history of lieing, that he has sworn
to before a court of law.
I think what he has done to these mucks is rather damn rude, and I don't
see how people can defend him. The ends do not justify the means. And in
this case, I'm not even sure what his ends realy are half the time.
D.M. Quozl Falk
[...]
: : 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).
: If the wizzes expect me to get down on my knees and beg forgiveness, they
: have another thing coming. I have very little respect for anyone who has
: behaved in such a shallow and spineless manner.
Considering your repeated attacks against FT and FM (of which I've read
HERE in a.f.f.), you got exactly what you deserved! You did NOT display
any form of maturity, which you claimed you had (and railed against the
age limit because you felt you were more mature than that); instead you
demonstrated considerable immaturity by (a) falsifying your age, (b)
gloating about it, (c) attacking sysadmins for imposing age limits on
adult material, claming your mature enough to handle it, (d) complaining
you were locked out of said systems once they knew the truth.... And (e),
the biggie, IMO: you violated a contract, and thus trust!
You got exactly what you deserved!
When you do turn 18, THEN ask the wizzes- NICELY- if you can be
reinstated. By law, you'd be old enough for the adult areas, but (IMO,
mind you) I don't think you're mature enough for them.
D.M. Quozl Falk
: : 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
: I'm afraid that after reading four posts in a row by Mr. Meyer, all of
: which were snide, obnoxious, and holier-than-thou, I'd have to say he's
: the only one around here acting childish or egotistical.
I'm not going to offer an opinion WRT Karl Meyer, but I will say this:
YOU are acting very childish and egotistical!
Grow up, Vulpine- You're still a kit...
Rudyard John Coltman
bma...@iglou.iglou.com (Bill Marcum) writes:
>If the principle "once a liar, always a liar" is taken too literally,
>there's no point in anybody testifying in court.
Spotty hoots, "Some of my colleagues would have more trouble than they do now."
Spotty
On borrowed account
Joshua Juran
Furlong) wrote:
> 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.
> >
> >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 won't go into detail about WHY you were @toaded,
> but you did _THAT_ to yourself, by your actions,
> admitting to falsifying information.
And what would you have done? Lied about your age and kept your mouth
shut? Or would you have registered as a minor and been ostracized?
> The AUP of Furry required the Wizzes to do what they did.
Uh-huh. Company policy. Well, at least you have some respect for rules.
> ***
>
> 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.
What enforcers?
> 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).
Ah. This is the "sticking our heads in the sand and hoping they won't
notice us as they rape & pillage the 'net" that Vulpine was referring to.
> 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.
And too many people willing to lie down and get steamrollered without
putting up a fight?
> 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? )
If muds *are* infringing copyrights, then don't they deserve the
consequence of prosecution, as much as or more than Vulpine does the
consequence of suspension? "...you did _THAT_ to yourself, by your
actions..."
> Thanks, Pal.
Damn whistleblower. Never mind the rules when they're inconvenient for *me*.
> *SIGH*
Sigh indeed.
Josh
--
Joshua Juran These are not the opinions of my employer.
=) Wait -- yes they are... I'm self-employed.
wand...@ids2.idsonline.com
<http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1597/>
Dr. Cat
Well, they'd have been more likely to discuss the issue if you'd have
shown them the affidavit before filing it. At the very least, even
offering them a chance to suggest changes to the wording of some sections
might have helped some. Letting them try to talk you out of it would
have been a sign of good faith, too. Would have shown you were at least
willing to listen to their opinions, even if you didn't agree with them.
Whether they'd be less inclined to toad now had they been consulted
earlier I don't know, but it certainly wouldn't have HURT your chances.
: Just so everyone knows, an update on what has happened is going to be
: added to the section of the ACLU website about me shortly. Netly News is
: also planning a story on this, either tonite or sometime next week. As I
: understand it, though I have not seen the story, the reporter talked to
: the wizzes of both MUCKs as well as myself and my mother.
Ironic - the wizards were upset about the attention and publicity the
affidavit might cause, yet their own reaction has caused the publicity to
widen. I have to wonder, if they had limited themselves to a simple 6
week suspension in the first place, with polite email notification, would
the Netly News have considered the story interesting enough to cover at all?
Regardless, I hope that FurryMUCK comes off sounding better in their
article than Furtoonia, for having made a more restrained response and
for having the wizards choose to spend some time discussing the matter
before making a final decision. I hope you'll post the address of the
article after it's posted, I'm sure a lot of people here will want to
read it.
Dr. Cat
: Tod T. Fox (vul...@gold.mv.net) wrote:
: : Karl Meyer (fer...@wwa.com) wrote:
: : : oppinion is that this is nothing more than a
Rather than accuse everyone on alt.fan.furry of being childish and
egotistical one by one, can we simple make a blanket statement that
everyone is childish and egotistical and move on? I already know that
*I* am, I don't need anyone to accuse me of it! :X)
The fact that people can't seem to talk about this issue without getting
all upset is why I'm worried that the extent of Vulpine's punishment
won't be decided upon in a calm, sensible fashion as it ought to be. I
certainly think some disciplinary action is called for because of his AUP
violation, but I think reasonable people can have an honest difference of
opinion over how severe the punishment should be. And I'd like to think
such people could discuss their differences without name-calling.
And honestly, Vulpine, you really don't help your case any by insulting
people back when they say stuff like that to you. A lot of furries are
mad enough at you already, if you insult anyone in public you just give
them more reasons to feel angry at you. Whether you're replying to an
insult or not, that's how they'll react. If you'd make an effort to stay
polite you'd give people a better impression of you. Including me.
The COWZ Administratio
> ... 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.
Remind me not to log into CrimMUCK when and if it goes up.
> ... 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.
How can you infest a registration-only MUCK? As I recall on several
TinyTIM invasion runs, FurryMUCK pretty much treats new players like
plebes in a military school, keeps them in a room, and demands six billion
pieces of information about you before it'll let you do anything at
all.
Why am I even getting into this conversation? I dunno. Slow week.
Prince Montague of London
Tod T. Fox (vul...@gold.mv.net) wrote:
: Dr. Cat (c...@eden.com) wrote:
: : And you know, before you accuse someone of acting with malicious intent,
: : in a public forum that they happen to be participating in... You COULD
: : just ask him. If he explains his motives and you think he's lying, then
: : go ahead and say how and why. But to presume malice based solely on the
: : effect of actions, without evidence of intent... That's pretty rude.
: If the wizzes had just given me a chance to answer some of their
: concerns, perhaps a lot of this mess could have been avoided?
: Just so everyone knows, an update on what has happened is going to be
: added to the section of the ACLU website about me shortly. Netly News is
: also planning a story on this, either tonite or sometime next week. As I
: understand it, though I have not seen the story, the reporter talked to
: the wizzes of both MUCKs as well as myself and my mother.
If this makes Day and Date or Nightline, I'm officially
pronouncing (with no authority whatsoever) this whole situation FUBAR.
Get a grip people. LET IT GO. Pursuing this, let alone describing it
in an ACLU website etc, is -hardly- going to help the case against the
CDA.
CDA Lawyer: "In reference to evidence items A, B, and C,
namely the various media reports on the lack of security at FurryMUCK
(Christian Coalition chimes in: BURN THE HEATHENS! BEASTIALITY IS A
SIN! THEY'RE CORRUPTING OUR CHILDREN!) ..."
Get the point?
- --
Alex Feely
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMVtc7rsHqlgCA51hAQGSfAP9FRnCNi6+l6n7b5QaWVDtJgrJKd5kZzsD
8/1pejPGHHvo6FJ7ViCIsivraVPWF4zrjOKG8my5KJdUa/bW6actNBHyABAEpXkO
l3hwImor+HKUN42p2V9gPvz7QwvRk9/J2AQFO1KYIBb7+BEpFJt3LGIeKqyhFyue
hprKBub0Pgw=
=NlEK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
======================================================================
The Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in
any form, in whole or in part. Copyright (c) Alexander Feely,
1995. License to distribute this post is available to Microsoft for
$800. Appearance without permission constitutes agreement to these
terms. | ma...@cybersoul.com
http://cybersoul.com/ (coming soon) | mont...@netcom.com
======================================================================
D.M. Quozl Falk
: Dr. Cat (c...@eden.com) wrote:
: : And you know, before you accuse someone of acting with malicious intent,
: : in a public forum that they happen to be participating in... You COULD
: : just ask him. If he explains his motives and you think he's lying, then
: : go ahead and say how and why. But to presume malice based solely on the
: : effect of actions, without evidence of intent... That's pretty rude.
: If the wizzes had just given me a chance to answer some of their
: concerns, perhaps a lot of this mess could have been avoided?
They were not required to give you warning, as per the FM contract.
: Just so everyone knows, an update on what has happened is going to be
: added to the section of the ACLU website about me shortly. Netly News is
: also planning a story on this, either tonite or sometime next week. As I
: understand it, though I have not seen the story, the reporter talked to
: the wizzes of both MUCKs as well as myself and my mother.
Oh, God.............
Peter da Silva
>Just so everyone knows, an update on what has happened is going to be
>added to the section of the ACLU website about me shortly. Netly News is
>also planning a story on this, either tonite or sometime next week. As I
>understand it, though I have not seen the story, the reporter talked to
>the wizzes of both MUCKs as well as myself and my mother.
Oh boy. Reporters. I hope they're more clueful than Wired was.
Peter da Silva
>What will I get blamed for next? Global Warming?
Lag. All those foxes shedding into the database.
Tod T. Fox
: The fact that you proved and rubbed folks noses in the fact that the
: that the MUCKs are unable to police themselves or deal with the presence
: of minors on the net on their own. (Or at least ones that delibertly
: falsify information.) This is negative.
: (I can see the pro-CDA forces now ... "Look at this affidavit! Any
: child out there could claim they were adults and get into adult areas -
: they don't check! We need to make sure that they have to check ages,
: just like liquor stores - we need laws about this!" The negativity
: is not, in my mind, directly about the content on FurryMUCK.)
If either of the above arguments were the case, do you really think that
the ACLU would have had me file an affidavit?
: If the MUCKs did not have adult material, why do you need an age statement?
: There must be material on the MUCKs that are for adults only, then. What
: material is suitable only for adults? Go figure.
I find this argument fascinating. Its like your blaming me for the MUCKs
requiring age statements.
: Actually, I would consider myself lucky that I still had an internet
: account, if I was you. Some Terms of Service or Acceptable Use Policies
: on some ISP's would undoubtedly cover use of their services for fraud
: or purposely deceptive information, or theft of services from others.
Not quite, Kim. The people who run my ISP also run Electronic Fronteirs
New Hampshire, which I believe is actually a party to the ACLU suit.
'nuff said.
Tod
David Green
>David Green (nebu...@divcom.umop-ap.com) wrote:
>: 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).
>
>If the wizzes expect me to get down on my knees and beg forgiveness, they
>have another thing coming. I have very little respect for anyone who has
>behaved in such a shallow and spineless manner.
I'm afraid I have to agree with Karl Meyers' asseration of your being
egotistical, or at the very least accuse you of thoughtlessness. Take some
time to put yourself in the wizards' place. No, it's probably not highly
likely that Furry will be raided by the authorities. But consider what
would happen if it were. There would likely be a long and expensive (for
the wizards) trial over it. Equipment would be siezed, and possibly
damaged (if you don't think this is possible, take a look at the origin
story of Steve Jacksons' game "Hacker"), data could be lost--S'A'Alis'
entire livelihood would suffer greatly from any loss of this magnitude.
The wizards could possibly be jailed or fined, and, if the trial kept them
away from their jobs too long, or if they were jailed, they could lose
their jobs, too. Considering that the law is already being challenged in
the courts, there is no need for the wizards to put themselves at that
level of risk to make a symbolic gesture of defiance.
Would you be willing to put all that on the line yourself? Think carefully
before answering. And, Tod, don't count on your age to protect you from
punishments--you're trying to be treated like an adult, yes? The risk that
all of the listed above will happen is small. But it still exists, and the
wizards have decided that the consequences as such are not something that
they're willing to risk. I can't say I blame them. I'm not willing to
throw my entire livelihood on the line for an issue that is already being
fought on less costly grounds.
Even if you would be willing to take that risk (which I find somewhat
unlikely, given that you seemed totally taken off-guard just by having lost
a couple of characters on MU*'s), name-calling ("shallow and spineless")
is hardly called for.
>: 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.
>
>No, I'm afraid I can't.
So, why do you expect other people to be understanding of your position, if
you can't try to be understanding of the wizards'?
>My affidavit is really pretty damn tame.
Regardless, it still called attention to the MUCK that the wizards did not
want to have to deal with. You could have discussed your plans with the
wizards *before* you filed an affidavit. But you chose not to. When you
take a questionable action, you will need to learn with the consequences of
it.
>I continue to be amazed that so many people are so wildly worked up about
>all this.
And I continue to be amazed that you're so wildly worked up about your loss
of access to your characters after publicly admitting to falsifying your
registration information for them.
--
Love, like violent crime, only happens to other people.
Dr. Cat
: In article <4j4a9b$d...@boris.eden.com>, Dr. Cat <c...@eden.com> wrote:
: >
: >I'd like to STRONGLY encourage the wizards of FurryMUCK to set Vulpine's
: >official punishment to nothing stronger than six weeks suspension.
: You have, I think, lost sight of WHY he was toaded - NOT for "attacking"
: the muck, NOT for attacking the CDA, but FOR falsifying his age
: information AND also for proclaiming VERY loudly afterwards that he had
: done so.
WHY is exactly what I'm concerned with, but I view WHY differently than
you. To me WHY is in the minds the Furtoonia wizards who toaded him. In
particular Kahz, in this case, who I've heard is the wizard that did it.
Why he was punished at all is clear to everyone. Why to chose one
particular punishment or another, that's what I want to hear about. If
WHY was "We just need to protect Furtoonia legally" then 6 weeks suspension
would have sufficed, in my opinion. If WHY was "I am very angry at Vulpine"
then that's another matter entirely.
I've only heard things second or third hand about what Kahz's motivations
or moods may have been. Thus far there's been no public statement. What
I'd really like to see is a brief explanation, here or on the Furtoonia
message boards, from Kahz or one of the other Furtoonia wizards. Just
saying why toading was chosen as the specific punishment here rather than
one of the other possibilities. Certainly the wizards are under no
obligation of any kind to explain themselves if they don't wish to. But
I think a lot of their players would appreciate it if they did - myself
included.
Dr. Cat
: The one has nothing to do with the other... Existing characters (so far)
: continue to exist without any changes and without being certified as
: either adult or non-adult.
: However the current policy says that requests for NEW characters MUST
: include the birthdate. This is true whether you have existing characters
: or not, and whether you are adult or not.
This is something that continues to baffle me a little bit, this
dichotomy. If the wizzes feel that having players with no age registered
is legally risky in some way, isn't requiring it of new users only an
inadequate form of protection?
On the other hand, if the wizzes feel that having no age registered is
NOT a legal risk, since unregistered characters are kept out of the adult
areas just like minors are... Then why not allow the privilege of this
choice to new users as well as existing ones? I know I certainly
appreciate having been given the choice.
Seems to me most logical to treat new characters and old characters the
same way on this issue, rather than having different rules for each.
Hanno Foest
In article <4jbtp2$j...@epx.cis.umn.edu> fayx...@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Timothy D
Fay) writes:
>But I'll say _AGAIN_ that *IF* they really want to avoid any trouble,
>then they should shut down _all_ the TS-ing that goes on at FurryMuck
>and FurToonia.
Again I ask: How?
Hanno (Hurga @FM)
FeliisLeo
>Just so everyone knows, an update on what has happened is going to be
>added to the section of the ACLU website about me shortly. Netly News is
>also planning a story on this, either tonite or sometime next week. As I
>understand it, though I have not seen the story, the reporter talked to
>the wizzes of both MUCKs as well as myself and my mother.
Which wizards? I am in contact with serveral on an almost daily basis and
this is the first I've heard of this. Considering sensationalism in the
media, this could be very bad for the ACLU's case against the CDA.
The very rarely seen Reba
ze...@cyclops.umop-ap.com
ethompso@janus1
> I'm not the enemy, the CDA is. But if either FT or FM get shut down, it
> won't the Feds. It'll be the wizzes getting frantic and overworked about
> nothing. People have been accusing me of "illusions of grandeur" but I
> think the wizzes need to be reminded that furries are really a very
> small, and pretty unknown, part of the larger 'net community.
>
> Vulpine
I think that the first thing the justice department will go after
is any group participating in the lawsuit that is undercutting an
increase in their authority. Since FM does have a "reputation" on the
net, it _is_ a target. Probably not as bit a one as playboy.com, but one
nonetheless. Avatar seems very vulnerable, as well.
Eric the .5b
ethompso@janus1
> No, I'm afraid I can't. My affidavit is really pretty damn tame. I
> continue to be amazed that so many people are so wildly worked up about
> all this.
>
> Vulpine
Then you genuinely need a clue, or need a cranial-anal extraction.
Eric the .5b
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>In article <Dp00t...@granite.mv.net>, Tod T. Fox <vul...@gold.mv.net> wrote:
>>added to the section of the ACLU website about me shortly. Netly News is
>>also planning a story on this, either tonite or sometime next week. As I
They confused access requirements for FM and FT (making it sound like FT has
far more stringent ones). They claim he was an assistant administrator
(though there's a link to a page which defines Helpstaff), they're a bit
fuzzy on @toading, they make it sound like cybersex was the only thing that
happens on the mucks. And what's a sartyr (satyr, or related to sartorial)?
Some quotes from Tugrik, and the 'human interest' bit is okay (it's mostly a
miled outrage piece), though most of us already know that part of it. Here
- judge for yourself: :)
http://pathfinder.com/@@GGNdfLIenQMAQDmu/Netly/nnhome.html
--
This space intentionally left what would otherwise be blank were this not here.
Steve Arlow
>This is something that continues to baffle me a little bit, this
>
>Seems to me most logical to treat new characters and old characters the
>same way on this issue, rather than having different rules for each.
There are "grandfather clauses" in hundreds of rules,
regulations, and laws. Such a granfather clause is not
unusual, and is a way of changing the rules without
making *ex post facto* violators of the old-timers who
obeyed the old rules in good faith.
--
"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
Kim
>Kim (book...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: The fact that you proved and rubbed folks noses in the fact that the
>: wizzes believed you when you lied about your age is bad. It implies
>: that the MUCKs are unable to police themselves or deal with the presence
>: of minors on the net on their own. (Or at least ones that delibertly
>: falsify information.) This is negative.
>: (I can see the pro-CDA forces now ... "Look at this affidavit! Any
>: child out there could claim they were adults and get into adult areas -
>: they don't check! We need to make sure that they have to check ages,
>: just like liquor stores - we need laws about this!" The negativity
>: is not, in my mind, directly about the content on FurryMUCK.)
>
>If either of the above arguments were the case, do you really think that
>the ACLU would have had me file an affidavit?
Dunno. The part about the Arthurian mailing list actually has some
merit. Perhaps they know something I do not. Or maybe I know something
they do not. Did they review the affidavit before you filed it, BTW, or
advise you on what to put in it?
>: If the MUCKs did not have adult material, why do you need an age statement?
>: There must be material on the MUCKs that are for adults only, then. What
>: material is suitable only for adults? Go figure.
>
>I find this argument fascinating. Its like your blaming me for the MUCKs
>requiring age statements.
Pardon? I hardly think that.
>: Actually, I would consider myself lucky that I still had an internet
>: account, if I was you. Some Terms of Service or Acceptable Use Policies
>: on some ISP's would undoubtedly cover use of their services for fraud
>: or purposely deceptive information, or theft of services from others.
>
>Not quite, Kim. The people who run my ISP also run Electronic Fronteirs
>New Hampshire, which I believe is actually a party to the ACLU suit.
>'nuff said.
Good for you. As I said, some ISPs would do that. I am unable to find
any copy of your ISP's AUP or TOS anywhere off hand to verify that,
regardless of the CDA, they accept or condone use of their services for:
a) Deceit
b) Theft of service
Which is basically what I perceive you have done. (Theft of service being
adult status on the MUCKs when not deserving of such.)
I am still curious -
Did you plan to file an affidavit before you lied?
Kim
Mike Johannson
>TinyTIM invasion runs, FurryMUCK pretty much treats new players like
>plebes in a military school, keeps them in a room, and demands six billion
>pieces of information about you before it'll let you do anything at
>all.
Well, I'm sure this has already been responded to amply, but I have to
throw in my two cents anyway. What you're saying is completely innacurate and
completely unfair. Anyone who wishes to join FurryMUCK need only E-Mail their
character request. To be validated as an adult (which you really don't need
to do unless you want to be known as an adult), you can, at your leisure, send
them information about your country of residence and age. When I sent in my
request for a character, I gave them 3 pieces of info. My character's name,
his password, and my E-Mail address. It couldn't be much easier if one tried.
>Why am I even getting into this conversation? I dunno. Slow week.
That's a good question. You've probably got better things to do -
like check up on your info before shooting off at the jaw.
Mike
Swyft, of FurryMUCK
Mike Johannson
>takes the form of actively annoying the hell out of the admin, so that
>they are taking this action against you?
I fear the user in question has lost sight of the very simple truth
that there is no "right" to participate in any sort of MUCK. If provision of
one's birthdate is required by the admin, then either one should submit it or
leave. These rules are scarcely unfair, and the muck is NOT a publicly run
institution. Indeed, I do not know the whole story, but I'm going to assume
that they are looking for this information, they just want to know whether
he's a minor or not, and he's being difficult by refusing to submit it.
It's his own fault, not ours :)
Mike
Swyft, of FurryMUCK
Eric Fitzwater
>In article <DouHG...@iglou.com>,
> bma...@iglou.iglou.com (Bill Marcum) writes:
>>If the principle "once a liar, always a liar" is taken too literally,
>>there's no point in anybody testifying in court.
Isn't this the entire reasoning behind trying to discredit a witness
during a trial?!?
guitar
Mike Johannson
>there to back it up with an exact quote from my affidavit.
Fair enough, If I'm going to put out an opinion, I had better support
it or retract it. After thinking long and hard about what I've said, I'm
prepared to do a little of both.
"17. This policy is ineffective at actually keeping minors from the rooms
because anyone can simply lie about their age and therefore be registered
by the administrator as an adult. It is also ineffective because the
creator of a particular room is only present in the room a small
percentage of the time."
-Sec. 17, Affidavit of C. O'Connel-Ransohoff
I fear you have lost sight of my original meaning. If I was
ambiguous, I apologize. Let me clarify. This has _nothing_ to do with your
making any references to pornography, because it's not difficult to see that
there aren't any significant ones in your affidavit. Originally, my post was
in response not to your affidavit, but rather to the comments of your post of
March 23rd, which I have since lost.
I don't really think that it is fair to complain about your
suspensions on either of the MUCKs that were in question, and it was their
decision for which I was playing Devil's advocate. Their policies are not,
realistically, based on excluding minors from their muck, or protecting
minors. They exist to protect the administrators of the MUCK. They use the
'honour system' in the estimation - probably the correct estimation - that it
puts them in a legally secure position against the CDA.
I'll reiterate what I said - "If one doesn't get caught, no wrong has
been comitted". Yes, yes, I understand it's a brutish comment, and a phrase
I've never much liked, but it applies. When something like a public document
is posted, however, with a stern decrying of an institution's legal policy,
one must expect that institution to become instantly defensive. I can't blame
them for that, and that was the original crux of my post.
I said I wouldn't argue the CDA here, because the topic receives
enough attention, and I dislike it as much as almost all of you out there. Of
course, I _do_ live in Canada, and, while the act could stand to restrict what
I do on an international scale on the internet, it doesn't threaten me
legally. .
>Where in my affidavit do I say anything that suggests that there is
>pornography on the MUCKs or anything else to induce the Fed feeding
>frenzy so many of you seem to think is coming because of this?
Hey, hey... I'll afford you the privilige of not being lumped into a
stereotyped group only if you afford me the same. It *IS* my material that's
quoted above, and I never suggested that the affidavit suggests anything
regarding pronography on MUCKs. While that topic _is_ central to the
necessity of phenomena of things like age declarations, my comments never had
anything to do with it.
>out, other ACLU affidavits are a potentially a lot more damaging for the
>services they discuss than mine is for the MUCKs. Go read Rheana
>Parennas' affidavit, or the one by Brock Meeks.
I read Dr. Cat's posts, and I discussed a touch of the topic with him
via EMail. But, what he used as an example is not necessarily fair for you to
use as a defense. Don't lose sight of the issue - saying that "this or that
is worse than the other thing, and therefore the other thing is infallible" is
very dangerous logic (see history for a good number of examples).
Additionally, at your suggestion, I fired up my browser and read both
those affidavits (I have just finished doing so). I don't necessarily
disagree with the content of either of them, but I understand your point.
They are much more direct in terms of explaining that they _do_ support
something that _does_ allow "indecent" or "patently offensive" material to
slip into the hands of minors. They have both have something in common with
each other that your affidavit does not share. They do not seem to cite an
institution that is _trying_ to maintain a low profile and comply with the CDA
(It _is_ law, unfortunately...). From experience, I've found that publicity
is never favourable when one is trying to quietly offer compliance.
>won't the Feds. It'll be the wizzes getting frantic and overworked about
>nothing. People have been accusing me of "illusions of grandeur" but I
Let's be fair to them, first off. One doesn't need to wonder what
makes a wiz "frantic and [worked up]" - it is things that give publicity to
the inherent flaws in their methods of legal self-protection: In short, things
like the affidavit. I'd like to say right off that I accuse you of no such
things - I understand what you are doing and why, and I'm duely impressed with
your resolve. I do not claim that, faced with the same situation, I would
fight so feverishly for that in which I believe.
And this brings me to the reason I want to make this post. I was
discussing the tone of my original post with Dr. Cat in an EMail, and he made
the very valid point that I was not being entirely fair. I have to say that I
probably didn't expect my post to receive attention from anyone, and slapped
it together pretty haphazardly. Therefore...
I want to apologize for any misunderstandings I caused, and I
certainly would like to apologize if you still get the impression that I'm
being unfair: I'm totally willing to hear any expansion of your side of the
argument.
I also want to say that I _do_ respect what you are doing, and I
respect the fact that you are doing on behalf of all of us. Sticking to one's
principles is very important, and is often very difficult to do publicly.
What I had posted, I posted because, obviously, there would be no support for
the position of the MUCK administrators here if someone didn't pick it up.
I would challenge that there is probably no participator in this
thread - and that definately includes myself - that would do what you did and
allow your name the publicity that you have. You definately have my respect.
Simply, I think it is always important to evaluate multiple sides to the same
argument.
Mike
Swyft, of FurryMUCK.
Dr. Cat
: In article <4jh75e$h...@boris.eden.com>, Dr. Cat <c...@eden.com> wrote:
: >Seems to me most logical to treat new characters and old characters the
: There are "grandfather clauses" in hundreds of rules,
: regulations, and laws. Such a granfather clause is not
: unusual, and is a way of changing the rules without
: making *ex post facto* violators of the old-timers who
: obeyed the old rules in good faith.
I'm familiar with the concept of grandfather clauses. And if, in fact,
the CDA included some grandfather clause that gave characters registered
pre-CDA a different status than those registered after, I could
understand the muck mirroring that with their policy. Given that under
this particular law old-timers and new players will be treated the same,
I am still confused why a grandfather clause is being implemented.
Dr. Cat
: http://pathfinder.com/@@GGNdfLIenQMAQDmu/Netly/nnhome.html
I noticed that I could also get there with just:
http://pathfinder.com/Netly/nnhome.html
It's too bad they got a few of their facts wrong, though hardly
surprising. I did happen to follow their link to the Furtoonia
Helpstaff page, and I noticed that it still lists Vulpine as one
of the Helpstaff! Maybe they should update their page?
Kim
>
> I would challenge that there is probably no participator in this
>thread - and that definately includes myself - that would do what you did and
>allow your name the publicity that you have. You definately have my respect.
>Simply, I think it is always important to evaluate multiple sides to the same
>argument.
>
> Mike
>
>Swyft, of FurryMUCK.
I can not help but agree to the word on this paragraph.
Kim
Karl W. Meyer
: : 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
: I'm afraid that after reading four posts in a row by Mr. Meyer, all of
: which were snide, obnoxious, and holier-than-thou, I'd have to say he's
: the only one around here acting childish or egotistical.
Actually only two of my replies were "snide and obnoxious." They were
simply taking the same tone as the posts they responded to. THe ones to
you and Dr. Cat were just regular rebuttles. In other words I disagreed
with you and he. Thought I'd clear that up.
Crim on FT, FM, FF, SPR
Karl W. Meyer
: Ironic - the wizards were upset about the attention and publicity the
: affidavit might cause, yet their own reaction has caused the publicity to
: widen.
Actually it's Vulpine causing the publicity to widen. If he indeed adds to
his affidavit. I hope both Mucks simply show the reporters the policy
about the age statements, point to the part of Vulpine's document where he
admits he lied and leave it at that. No further statement needed.
Peter da Silva
In article <4ji39e$n...@pine.can.net>, Mike Johannson <erh...@can.net> wrote:
> Well, I'm sure this has already been responded to amply, but I have to
>throw in my two cents anyway. What you're saying is completely innacurate and
>completely unfair. Anyone who wishes to join FurryMUCK need only E-Mail their
>character request.
Including your country of residence and your age. Trust me. This is a recent
change so you wouldn't have noticed it unless you tried to register recently.