[Nuitari]

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.

[doconnor]

Will he have an opportunity to defend himself?

[Nuitari]

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.

[Mikkel Paulson]

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

[Yehoshua]

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, 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.)

[Nuitari]

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

Yes they do.

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?)

Yes.

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?

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

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 [http://www.tranquileye.com/magic/magic_stuff/Toronto_Net_loons.htm if you believe this attack-site against him], 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".

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.

[Mikkel Paulson]

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.

[Thomas]

Internet drama.

[SpudsBM]

and i feel like im missing some episodes here.

[RDesroches]

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.

[Nuitari]

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

[btrower]

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.

[Nuitari]

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

[Sean Hunt]

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

[Concerned Citizen]

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.