Pirate Party of Canada Forum

Tonight, Joe Baptista came onto the IRC in a rather debating mood, demanding an apology over us criticizing his hate speech on the assassination of public figures, and his endorsement of Somali pirates, all coming from a man who has been called an "internet terrorist". If you do not believe me, google him.

After several minutes, he no longer had any plans to use courteous discourse, and was summarily glined wrom the PPCA IRC server. He has also been banned from calling us for the time being.

We plan on holding a vote at the next meeting, calling to expel him from the membership of the PPCA. I would like all members to look up the past of this government irritant before voting.

It seems the most of the records of what he is accused of no longer exist, making it hard to review what was said to make a decision.

I didn't read the assassination of public figures thread, but I assumed it was tongue-in-cheek. I didn't agree with his endorsement of Somali pirates, I felt he raised some valid issues.

"was summarily glined wrom the PPCA IRC server"

Is this some IRC terminology I'm not familiar with?

I dont know his view on Somali piracy was a bit extreme. I understand how and why it started. Like many desperation moves become successful they are no longer doing it for pure intentions anymore. They're doing it for the $$$. Sure the country benefits from their efforts but really if they pushed too hard they'd get hammered by some true military power rather than warning shots from some gunboat escorts.

Banned from the entire PPCA server and related networks. Gline stands for Global kill line.

While I do not like the idea of us calling out a member, his posts are against our agenda and thus he can only hold us back. It is also disrespectful and unconstitutional to start attacking figures and explaining how he believes they should be "assasinated". Stuff like that does not relfect well on a political party.

If it is possible can the log be made of the IRC chat?

Edit: From research he is a man that we should take very seriously. We need to distance ourselves from him in case of the worst scenario. He is someone that can and will hurt our image if he desires...

I have full logs as I was in the channel at the time, but I'm not sure that we should make this data publicly available, given that participants were not put on notice that their activities were being logged.


I'm afraid that distancing ourselves from him will cause the worst scenario.

Indeed, he stated his pleasure at us as if we thought he was some big threat. He's not, we can easily take care of him through this vote and other measures. He does this so that he feels we are paying attention to his idiocy.

Thumbs up to negate the thumbs down somebody gave you.
Your points are valid.

My thoughts on JB....

If he is willing to understand that we are a newly forming party and that Public Representation is important enough to exclude extremist opinions - perhaps we could come to a compromise.  Granted - his reputation is not something the party should endorse.

J

That's the thing, he's not. He's come here looking for attention and to be a thorn in the side of us and the government. Ask our director at large, Bob Jonkman, he had to deal with him in '92 at Toronto Metro city hall.

Yeah I get alot of thumbs down for some reason... I guess I have a stalker out there who hates me. In reality he has some points, some invalid points and nothing to do with any of our pirate issues platforms (Copyright, Privacy or Government Transparency)... In the end he'd probably be better off finding some protest group rather than a fledgling political party.

Agreed.
Easy enough to fix your stalker prob./me flexes |^3P
/me closes ticket at +5
*resolved*

J

We are not the right venue for his views, and he doesn't seem to understand how media works. He is a dangerous person to be associated with, and we need to keep our distances.

Coming on IRC to demand that we apologize to him isn't acceptable behavior either.

As for the old forum, we have it on archive and can readily link to it.

We aren't anarchists.

Thanks for the help Jay...

And yeah, you dont form a political party to be anarchists. You form it to change the system from within the system... A hard but ultimately achievable goal.

We're going to tow the party line here whichever way ya'll decide to go.

Our assessment of JB is that it might have been easier to simply ask him to leave and explain why.
Gline, +b -v power tripping/picking fights vrs DNS root gurus, proxy genies or script kiddies is a tricky and time consuming business.

I guess what i'm trying to say is that it's easier to end a relationship with 'This isn't going to work out." rather then screaming "GTFO!".
Scorning him is liable to cause retaliation and a distraction to deploy countermeasures that we don't need.
If you read up on him, he's not exactly "Once bitten twice shy." - he's more like "Get even and then some just to prove a point."

Know what I mean?  Sorry to play devils advocate.  Please don't get me wrong - I'll help anyway I can if the decision is the ban hammer.
I entirely understand a desire to distance ourselves from potentially damaging bad press.

J

Bit late for that now, unfortunately.

He is still trying to be a thorn in our side by emailing us demand after demand.

We've already told him to behave, which he did not.

Will he have an opportunity to defend himself?

Yes, if he comes to the meeting. The gline will be temporarily removed from it.
We've also produced PDF copies of the forum threads in question and I'm saving the last chat and the emails he sent me afterwards.

He'll probably just demand ODF or copies signed and delivered by Jake...

I see no reason to condemn the statements of a random party member (do other political parties do that?)

I see no reason to expel a random party member for his views (would any other political party expel a minor member just because of his personal views?)

I see no reason for this public pillorying, as others have said, it's just likely to cause retaliation. Why don't we behave like grown-ups, not like 14-year old AOLers trying to defend their JediBilbo007 chatroom?

I see no reason we couldn't just warn him that we're going to be extra-stringent on his posting, so as to preserve the integrity of our forums. He is somebody who has very strong views on the internet frontier, and if you believe this attack-site against him (http://www.tranquileye.com/magic/magic_stuff/Toronto_Net_loons.htm), the Freedom of Information Act was actually rewritten in response to his attempts to hijack FOIA. I'd say, whether for good or evil, he seems to have had a substantial role in the direction of Canadian internet powers. As I understand it, internet frontier is a LARGE part of the PPCA mandate. He may have different, radical or extreme views...but have you read the comments on Conservative or NDP blogs lately? There are loonies everywhere...why should we attack them?

I see no reason our forums are public anyways, they should be limited just to members...it would mitigate 90% of the risk of "omg, rabble.ca editor found a posting by JB and ascribed it to the PPCA".

(Edited by Zblewski solely to fix the weblink.)

Yes they do.


Yes.



Because of what he posted and the fact that he doesn't accept that we are not following his song & dance to the letter.



He is a member.

He has been warned repeatedly. He recently came back demanding an apology for the warnings we gave him.

He is not a random party member that we just plucked out of the sky. The guy has been a pain in the side for months, both on the IRC channel and on the old forum. In fact it is because of him that we ditched the old forums and went to this new one.

That's exactly what he wants, but I wouldn't say that. Far from it, in fact. One person's transgressions can be dealt with easily, as we will see on the 19th. The forum change is due to a number of people behaving inappropriately, lax enforcement of vague rules by the staff, a superior feature set in the new forum, and most importantly because the old forum was fugly. Don't let his bluster fool you; Baptista is, contrary to what his ego may like to believe, but a minor thorn in our side. I absolutely agree that he should be removed because his behaviour is detrimental to the credibility of the Party, but a one-man army he is not.

Internet drama.

and i feel like im missing some episodes here.

Is the pdf of the forum posts and the IRC posted anywhere, or will it be made available before the meeting? I'd just like to know what all the fuss is about if I'm going to vote on it.

An announcement about this matter has been made there, with the pdf and history.
http://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=163.msg0#new

For the record, although I am  inclined to be *extremely* tolerant of diversity, now is not the time.

He still has the PPC logo on his website. I am not usually this direct, but tell him to take it down. Don't argue. Don't explain. It's your party logo and you can cry if you want to.

Send a letter saying that as the 'official' representative responsible for keeping the image of the PPC brand sound, you are *officially* asking that they take down that imagery by (say) July 6 at the very latest.

If he fails to comply, send an Email to [email protected]. That is (I believe) the company that controls the netblock for that domain.

If he mentions filing a suit again, tell him that he has no basis of claim and that you will:

a) Vigorously defend.

b) Counter-sue for damages. You already have a basis for claim in that he is poisoning your brand and using your copyrighted work without permission. Ironic, but who cares? If he files suit, you will have a further basis for claim. The small claims courts do not often award damages, but this would surely be a case where they did.

You will absolutely prevail if he is foolish enough to file a claim. He will shoulder all the time and trouble and legal fees if he can find a lawyer to press his claim (hint:the lawyer would be on thin ice as an officer of the court if he took the case). He will also pay about $300 in filing fees, even if he just uses small claims court.

If it comes to it, I will write the defense response. I have an excellent template here. I will also, if it comes to it, file the counter-suit or help you to do so.

It does happen that there are people in the world that you can't deal with and you just have to walk away. Don't get all wound up about it. Just dump the guy and move on.

If he is going to waste a thousand dollars of his own money, tell him to donate it to the party directly.

Sorry for the harsh words, but I see a lot of time wasted on dealing with this guy. If he is threatening the party or its members, he is not a good team member and you should waste no energy just dumping him and moving on.

Despite the total time-wastage -- it looks good on you all that you went way beyond the call of duty to defend principles of inclusion, tolerance of diversity and free speech. He has used his free time, though and now he is eating into time reserved for others.

Once the party is on a sounder footing, I think that we should, as a matter of principle, tolerate people who are a little 'out there', this guy included. However, at this formative stage, it is too much for the limited resources of the party members to extend courtesy beyond this point.

It would be really really weird to have to use a DMCA complaint to take it down...

I'd rather not do that; it would seem a bit hypocritical. We should probably aim for a trademark-based approach.

Agreed. After all as a party we generally have no problems with trademarks. This is a cut and dry case of attempt to poison the brand/trademark of the political party. A cease and desist letter to him and/or his ISP should be more than enough to get some action on this.

He can blog all he wants, just dont try to represent himself as a member or suggest he's speaking for the party.

Re:It would be really really weird to have to use a DMCA complaint to take it down...

Yes and no. You could, like Warren Buffet, oppose a tax-cut for the rich while still taking the tax cut as  long as it applies. There is nothing hypocritical about it. The playing field should not be on this level, but unfortunately it is. We don't make the world a better place by hobbling ourselves to make a point.

All things being equal, of course, I would prefer to avoid using the DMCA. It is a *disgusting* law currently being abused in the most scandalous ways. However, ee not only have a right to use the DMCA in an instance where that is the last recourse, arguably we have something of an obligation.

I agree, though, this has confusing optics for most people and would be a point of entry for sophist weasels to stir up the mob.

As mentioned above, this can be dealt with as a trademark violation. It is, in fact, the trademark violation that is the problem anyway.

As an aside, for the record, I strongly endorse the concept of trademarks. One of the most obnoxious things about the attempt (largely successful) to lump copyrights, patents and trademarks together is that, unlike software patents (which have no merit), trademarks benefit everyone.

If this were me alone, I would be sending a letter pointing out that it is both a trademark violation and a copyright violation. We wish our trademark to be respected. They can disagree as to whether or not that is our trademark, but they cannot demonstrate that they have permission to use the copyrighted work.

Anyway, the letter(s) should be sent demanding that the person stop poisoning the brand. By the way, it is not up to them to judge whether it is OK to use the logo. They may think we are wrong about poisoning the brand, but it is not their call -- it is ours because we also hold the copyright.

It's not a copyright violation.

I would expect some level of proof before I could feel comfortable in a measure like that. While I'm sure it's as I read it here, it sets a precedent that I'm not comfortable with. There is a lot of effort being discussed on the matter, and I am thinking it could be better spent elsewhere. The potential for a Barbra Streisand effect here shouldn't be overlooked, and if it is truly trolling, than attention to the matter would be the worst thing in my opinion.

This motion was passed (https://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=38.msg1787#msg1787) on June 19th. Most of the evidence presented at the meeting has since been taken offline.