Talk:Spectator website takedown 2009

Google cache of Bwog comments from "Columbia Daily Spectacle" [1]

Posted by Down with Spec Tyranny! : #1  · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 6:01 PM (from campus)
Revolution!
Posted by wow : #2 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 6:05 PM
This shitshow has its own tag now?
Posted by I don't : #3 (in reply to #2) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 6:06 PM (from campus)
see a "shitshow" tag. Do you? Maybe bwog should create one.

Oh wait, they already did, it's labeled "Spectator"
Posted by i meant : #4 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 6:07 PM
the "Spectacle at Spec" tag, which appears newly created.
Posted by go bubinksi : #5 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 6:20 PM
take down the evil empire!
Posted by hey che-fans : #6 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 6:23 PM (from campus)
Pseudo-revolutionaries, chill out. You don't know what you're talking about. Suspicion of power is a good thing, but assuming those in positions of authority are the ones in the wrong here would be dumb.

Also, Bwog, Spec editors haven't refused to comment, they're sticking to their original position and not speaking on advice from legal counsel.
Posted by it would be cool if : #7 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 6:29 PM (from campus)
he knew how to spell morale. also, he's blackmailing students which i'm pretty sure can be cause for suspension. oh and one last thing - he looks like an evil munchkin
Posted by James (Site staff): #8 (in reply to #6) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 6:30 PM (from campus)
At the time we first wrote the post, Spec editors had not responded to requests for comment. Since then, they have clarified they are not yet speaking on-the-record as per advice of counsel, and we have updated the post to reflect this.
Posted by anti-revolutionary again : #9 (in reply to #6) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 6:33 PM (from campus)
"As you are most likely aware, a recent proposal to create an MB-wide forum to critically assess the role of existing management positions, to more strictly define position responsibilities, and entertain proposed structural adjustments has been interpreted as a conspiracy against the current Corporate Board, who invoked executive privilege and the threat of dismissal in an attempt to quash all effort to create such a forum."

I would expect nothing less from the CB if a meeting was held behind their backs to plan what ended up looking like a coup - even if that wasn't what was originally intended, their proposal was so poorly handled that the CB told them they would not accept such hostile advances. Kudos!

Also, what Ryan Bubinski did is illegal (and just dumb - it's not his property). That's gotta count for something.
Posted by Dumb Spec : #10 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 6:38 PM (from campus)
1)Assuming Ryan's statement is true, they didn't force him to sign a "work-for-hire" contract for developing the website?

2) Yeah, threatening a whole bunch of quasi-journalists with dreams of ferreting out malfeasance and providing a voice for the people. Heavy handed attempts to squash criticism always go down well!

3) Go drama! I look forward to reading coverage of all this in the Spec. "Spec on Spec: Crisis on Broadway", and of course, since they're self-important, with a 100pt headline and a whitewash on the Corporate machinations.
Posted by How would : #11 (in reply to #7) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 6:40 PM (from campus)
actions taken at an outside of Columbia's sphere ("Independent since 1962"!) be linked to the Columbia disciplinary process?

And if you're talking about suspension from spec, well, that doesn't matter.
Posted by no : #12 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 6:40 PM (from campus)
by that logic all volunteer staff (so everyone) would have to sign an agreement
Posted by ryan bubinski : #13 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 6:45 PM
is the man, anyone who says he isn't is a CB plant
Posted by Yes : #14 (in reply to #13) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 6:48 PM
He's tremendously talented, but that doesn't excuse criminal asshattery.
Posted by Thoughts : #15 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 6:59 PM
What's wrong with a little Corporate Criticism? I think of this whole little Spec-tacle as a shareholder's revolt. Of course, Spectator's a private company, so this revolutionary movement is destined to fail. Unless Ryan knows a good lawyer. And/or turns it into a free speech argument (calling Prezbo...)

If by some miracle Ryan is within his rights to pull his content, then good for him. Unfortunately, methinks the powers-that-be that keep Spectator afloat will release the hounds on him.
Posted by a passing spectator : #16 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 7:00 PM (from campus)
both sides need to cool down a bit and talk to each other in a more friendly language. also, taking down the website in this manner seems quite rash and unjustified.
Posted by He probably : #17 (in reply to #16) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 7:02 PM (from campus)
just put in a redirect that sends all visitors to the corporate info page, and locked everything else down.
Posted by back to politics : #18 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 7:04 PM (from campus)
It's not a shareholder's revolt, it's like Milton burning down the place in Office Space.
Posted by yay bubinski! : #19 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 7:11 PM (from campus)
he seems like a better person than any of those resume-padders who call themselves the spec board
Posted by irate spec writer : #20 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 7:17 PM (from campus)
yeah statements blah blah blah

spec people need to work out their shit so that i can access my articles again
Posted by specboard : #21 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 7:19 PM (from campus)
is a drug-snorting mess.
Posted by Ian Malcolm : #22 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 7:35 PM (from campus)
WOW. DRAMA. MORE INTERESTING THAN DINOSAURS EATING US ALIVE. BWOG KEEP THE COVERAGE UP.
Posted by Hahaha : #23 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 7:39 PM (from campus)
This is so Gilmore Girls.
Posted by entertaining : #24 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 7:46 PM (from campus)
spec should do this more often and print all the internal scandals and gossip on their papers so people will actually read for fun.

Posted by ... : #25 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 7:46 PM (from campus)
i say it's bubinski's fault for getting involved with an organization that has not only a managing board but also a corporate boards.

i mean come on, how could you possibly invest energy into an organization that is so obviously top heavy.

moral of the story: if you invest significant time or energy into any group that has an "executive board" or a "corporate board" you will wish you hadn't.
Posted by Hrm : #26 (in reply to #25) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 7:49 PM
I believe that describes every 501(c)(3). So, yeah, fuck those non-profits.
Posted by good : #27 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 7:57 PM (from campus)
for ryan bubinski. power-hungry spec execs need a reality check.
Posted by ... : #28 (in reply to #26) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 7:59 PM (from campus)
i was talking about campus organizations, fool.

as far as non-profits go, there are top-heavy ones, and yeah, fuck them.

when you see "executive" staff pulling down >$200k year meanwhile some folks on clerical staff make $28k/yr after 30 years of service? when you see that "executive" staff defer the hard questions to their staff because "i never knew this would be so hard!" you really start to think, regardless of mission, fuck top heavy non-profits.
Posted by Except : #29 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 8:06 PM
Execs in CU clubs pull in $0.00K (at least Spec's do)
Posted by Hrm : #30 (in reply to #28) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 8:09 PM
The irony of your comment is delicious. This whole conflict arose out of a group of young editors (Bubinski included) who wanted to add an extra position to Spec's executive board but were shot down.
Posted by .... : #31 (in reply to #28) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 8:10 PM (from campus)
Spec is not a campus organization. They are a private tax-exempt corporation (Sect 509(a)(2)) that happens to be housed in a Columbia-owned building, happens to have Columbia students as staffers, uses Columbia phone systems, and uses Columbia email addresses. But they are not a campus organization.
Posted by dude : #32 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 8:11 PM (from campus)
Hey Bwog, are you going to review Latenite or did you forget to send someone?
Posted by umm : #33 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 8:15 PM (from campus)
does bubinski know that no one reads the spec?

i didn't even know they had a website until right now.
Posted by bc2010 : #34 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 8:19 PM (from campus)
elizabeth sucks!!! go ryan!
Posted by Even : #35 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 8:48 PM
though shutting down the websites is not the best course of action (and coul be illegal), Ryan is clearly the one with his screwed on right. Fuck the CB, they shouldn't exist.
Posted by Hrm : #36 (in reply to #35) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 8:51 PM
Once again, I'd like to point out that this conflict arose from an effort by Ryan and other editors to EXPAND the CB for next year, not abolish it.
Posted by Skeptic : #37 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 8:56 PM (from campus)
If this turns out to be another self-flagellating, self-created hoax to get more attention for an un-important entity (like the balloon boy), I am really going to hate the insecurity of the world this week.
Posted by Query : #38 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 9:00 PM (from campus)
What is the difference between the Corporate Board and the Managing Board? (And for that matter, whatever the fuck a Turkeyshoot is) Which people are members of both?
Posted by Spec person : #39 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 9:10 PM (from campus)
MB is all the editors, no idea what the CB is, not the student though.

and Turkeyshoot is basically applying for positions (Associates, Deputies, Editors).

and isn't Ryan dating Melissa? so.. doesn't that make this really awkward?
Posted by Not okay : #40 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 9:10 PM
CB is just the EIC, managing editor, and publisher. MB is all the actual editors of the paper for the major subheadings. AKA they do the real work and the CB sits on its ass and does "page reads." They have been invisible this year in terms of directing vision and policy.
Posted by Hey bwog, : #41 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 9:14 PM (from campus)
Why does this letter merit publication? A fellow student-run media outlet is going through a hard time. How would you feel if your dirty laundry was exposed for the entire Columbia student body to (potentially) read?

Spec, like every campus publication, has its problems. And maybe its reputation isn't great. But (most of) the members on MB are good editors and great people who don't deserve the shit that both Ryan's actions and BWOG's gossiping are subjecting them to. Lay off.

And to the thoughtful individual who thought it would be a good idea to forward this letter to BWOG, you're acting no better than the people you're seeking to hurt.
Posted by Well, : #42 (in reply to #39) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 9:16 PM (from campus)
that relationship's over. (assuming it even existed)

So basically the exec board sucks, a bunch tried to plan reform, exec board says no fucking way, we love power, now stfu and gbtw, and now there's a little rebellion on our hands with lawyers and maybe some cops.

You think the rebels should've gone the impeachment route? (Assuming there is an impeachment procedure)
Posted by yeahh!! : #43 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 9:19 PM (from campus)
yeahhhh ryan!
Posted by go ryan! : #44 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 9:19 PM
the CB's actions were way off-base, in addition to being unconstitutional. i'm glad ryan had the balls to do something about it. i just hope that the reason he did this does not get lost in all the drama over him doing it.
Posted by Well, : #45 (in reply to #41) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 9:28 PM (from campus)
Considering your website is down, people would be suspicious if the Spec went all Baghdad Bob and said, nope, everything is all right, nothing to see here.

Also, that letter was drafted for public consumption. Isn't journalism built on leaks? Besides, a Managing Board member thought it was important enough to send to Bwog. And the issue seems to be not the Managing Board, but the Corporate Board. I don't see how publishing this letter adversely affects the good editors and good people, considering that this Ryan fellow is bearing the brunt of this whole thing, and I guess the Exec people too.
Posted by Badass Bubinski : #46 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 9:38 PM (from campus)
So, basically Ryan is holding the website hostage?

Badass.
Posted by a former editor : #47 (in reply to #44) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 9:48 PM
Have you read spectator's constitution? Do you have any bloody clue what went down? Of course not. If you did, you'd know that the cb's job is to protect Spec from financial ruin.

In case the Spectator's staff didn't notice, there's a huge recession going on. Frankly I think Spec's staff should throw their cb a party for keeping the paper afloat (especially when you consider the psychopaths on mb).

Sorry, the Spec is not a complete democracy - suck it. I know I didn't work 80 hours a week to see a bunch of children fuck it all up.

The G8 that proposed changes has some great ideas and I'm excited to see where they lead. No one ever denied that. But their presentation was rushed, sloppy, and in

some parts redundant. The sane members of the G8 recognize that and are wisely distancing themselves from the incompetent members - I mean really some of the G8 members are in way over their heads.
Posted by How does : #48 (in reply to #47) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 9:56 PM (from campus)
criticism about leadership amount to "this is the bestest Corporate Board ever, so if you're against us, you're with the communists, and you'll destroy the Spec"? Okay, granted, website-crashing took it too far.

And you admit the idea has its merits, but the "presentation was rushed". If the ideas are good, and you agree with them, then why do you call your fellow Managing Board "a bunch of children" nad "incompetent"?

And what *did* go down? Can you give us some context/details? If not, then can you not pull the "state secrets" card please?

Posted by alum : #49 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 10:07 PM
it was inevitable that the petty personal struggles that perennially consume that paper would one day shut it down.

interesting question: this is all breaking on bwog. is this going to tip the balance of the bwog-spec share of a campus media audience? the NYT is already searching bwog for columbia opinion rather than spec...
Posted by Ignornant : #50 (in reply to #49) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 10:15 PM (from campus)
I know nothing about actual numbers, but if Bwog doesn't already have a significantly larger relevance on this campus, then I am completely out of touch. You have to read Bwog to be in the know. No one reads spec unless a copy was left in your bathroom stall or on the chair next to you in a lecture when class hasn't yet started.
Posted by fermi : #51 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 10:16 PM (from campus)
S(B) ≥ S(A)
Posted by And : #52 (in reply to #50) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 10:16 PM (from campus)
I'm calling myself ignorant of the numbers, not you for making your point. I was just adding that I think the shift you predict has already occurred.
Posted by Actually : #53 (in reply to #52) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 10:28 PM (from campus)
You're calling yourself "ignornant" of the numbers.

I'm a jackass.
Posted by Hrm : #54 (in reply to #50) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 10:33 PM
It's worth checking out the relative traffic figures of Spec & Bwog on alexa.com. Pretty much neck and neck recently, but tipped in favor of Spec over the long haul.

The explanation? I'm guessing Spec's reach is better than Bwog's outside of the undergraduate population, while Bwog's is stronger within.
Posted by again : #55 (in reply to #48) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 10:34 PM
No I agree that criticism is good (otherwise why would w turkeyshoot, a process in which we ask ppl running for positions essentially to criticises us to the nth degree?)

Children can have good ideas - it's the underlying maturity, lack of wisdom, and petulant followers' mentality that I am lamenting.

What went down is too long a story or I would try to summarize it for you. But this started with a seemingly-secret meeting by people whose criticisms were a mixture of great ideas (as I noted) and many misinformed claims that reflected the need to undergo the learning process known as shadowing which precedes turkeyshoots.

Hence rushed, at times redundant, and sloppy. I applaud the initiative but a) condemn thoughtless cheerleading for faux-rebels, b) support the current cb for trying to stick to their principles.

Posted by You may : #56 (in reply to #54) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 10:40 PM (from campus)
be correct in regards to who reads Spec vs. who reads Bwog, but do not ever reference Alexa rankings unless you are a sleazeball in the marketing department.

Alexa rankings are determined using statistics gathered ONLY FROM BROWSERS WITH THE ALEXA TOOLBAR INSTALLED. Only idiots install that toolbar, and so Alexa only tracks websites' rankings among the idiot population.
Posted by Hrm : #57 (in reply to #56) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 10:56 PM
True, Alexa is far from perfect. You'd be a fool to treat their numbers as gold, because they're rough estimates based on an imperfect collection system.

But Alexa's numbers CAN be useful for determining traffic orders of magnitude. My point was simply that Bwog and Spec are in the same ballpark by that metric.

Although if this keeps up...
Posted by yeah : #58 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 11:00 PM (from campus)
Are they trying to reprogram a website in 24 hours? Or are they trying to "compel" web guy to release his grip within 24 hours?
Posted by well : #59 (in reply to #58) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 11:09 PM
angry phone calls and threats from lawyers are definitely easier to get going than a new website.
Posted by but : #60 (in reply to #59) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 11:12 PM (from campus)
lawyers are more expensive.
Posted by i could be wrong : #61 (in reply to #58) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 11:26 PM
but I imagine that he isn't the only person with access to all of the codebase for the website. unless he actually deleted all of the files in the codebase and removed them from version control, it shouldn't be tough in a day for someone else with access to fix the redirects he wrote to take the CMS offline.
Posted by holy shit. : #62 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 11:27 PM (from campus)
this is bonkersssss.
Posted by Wow : #63 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 11:33 PM
The site's still down.

This is by far the most absurd publication drama I've ever witnessed at Columbia. And that's saying something.
Posted by Dead Tree : #64 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 11:41 PM (from campus)
It's just the website that's down, not the rest of the paper.

Who wants to start calling Spec offices Sunday night?
Posted by just out of curiosity : #65 · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 12:03 AM (from campus)
what position were they trying to add?
Posted by heads up : #66 · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 12:22 AM (from campus)
elizabeth simins' gmail status for like three days was " 'they said they wanted to have a meeting. i said i really didn't care.' - melissa"
Posted by Rumors. : #67 (in reply to #39) · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 1:27 AM (from campus)
No, Ryan is not dating Melissa.

Seriously? This thread is just a ton of rumors. Hopefully Spec will break the news themselves with actual facts on Monday.
Posted by Grow up : #68 · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 1:39 AM
Ryan and supporters. You're like 4 year olds who are having a destructive fit because you didn't get what you want right away. Is taking Spec offline how you demonstrate your journalistic integrity? No, just your tantrum. Good luck MB with your pre-schoolers!
Posted by Alum : #69 (in reply to #41) · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 2:55 AM
Many alumni (myself included) frequently look at the Spec website, either to learn what's going on at Columbia or just to briefly reconnect with the place. We're not privy to the information, rumors, etc. that current students are hearing. I'm glad Bwog is covering this, since I otherwise wouldn't have a clue what's going on. (Bwog has provided about 50 clues, many of which contradict one another, but at least it's something.)
Posted by I know : #70 · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 3:15 AM (from campus)
nothing about this. But taking down the website (regardless of any redundant "intellectual property authored by me," "I stand by my principles so much" whatevercrap) seems like a dbag move to me. I mean, if the guy didn't think he had any other options, maybe... but it *really* seems like a douche move. He did take a whole website hostage though, which is pretty impressive. Actually, if his letter had been better worded and more self-righteous (I'm talking Dickens' quotes here, or at least some well placed melodramatic cultural references), I would totally be on his side. Not that it would matter in any way, shape, or form, but I'm assuming the purpose of bwog comments is for people who have no influence to offer meaningless commentary. Anyway, the letter as it stands is really boring and stupid-sounding (I mean, surely he knew the letter would end up being seen by people besides the ones he was addressing it to, and so he could've taken the time to write a more entertaining letter, or at least one with fewer errors), and the list of demands makes the guy seem really childish. If only it had been a bit more over-the-top. Ah, sigh. Well, hopefully this will make good Varsity Show material one day.

Yay meaningless commentary!
Posted by /b/ : #71 · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 3:41 AM
This comment has been deleted.
Posted by wow : #72 (in reply to #71) · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 4:04 AM
I've rarely been offended by a comment on this site, but that one was bad.
Posted by uhh : #73 · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 4:08 AM (from campus)
That's horrible.
Posted by wait... what? : #74 (in reply to #71) · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 4:12 AM (from campus)
that was a really awful thing to post.
Posted by Alum : #75 (in reply to #71) · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 4:29 AM
Hello, kettle? This is the pot. You're black!
Posted by observer : #76 (in reply to #71) · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 4:46 AM
This is sadly not the first time when I, for one, have been offended by comments on this site, due to the intermittent and infrequent but nevertheless not isolated appearance of alarmingly racist and in particular abjectly anti-Semitic sentiments every so often. It is a sad thing that people in this school utter such remarks without shame.
Posted by Alum : #77 (in reply to #76) · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 4:57 AM
#71 came from a non-Columbia computer. It's author may not have any connection to the school. I certainly hope he/she/it doesn't.
Posted by no crown : #78 · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 5:08 AM
Your comments come from a non-Columbia computer as well, as do mine, and we both have connections to Columbia. I for one know that I do, and I have no reason to doubt that you do as well. And I for one think it is presumptuous to believe that people that don't have a connection would be reading and posting on this blog. In any event, bigoted remarks have at times appeared here before, and sometimes even from posters who weren't ashamed to attach their uni's to their posts. Granted, only a minority of posts contain bigoted sentiments, but I for one find it quite disturbing that those who posts implicitly anticipate that their sentiments are shared.
Posted by correction : #79 · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 5:10 AM
In the last sentence, "that those who post such sentiments..."
Posted by Alum : #80 (in reply to #78) · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 5:16 AM
I said "may not", so of course I realize that the author might be a Columbian. At the same time, there are people who seem eager to make Columbia seem like an anti-Semitic place, and many of them are not connected to the university. I hope #71 is one of those folks, just trolling for a thread with lots of traffic.
Posted by hmm : #81 · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 7:18 AM
I don't know anyone on Spec, so don't particularly care who wins this. It's one thing to take the website down. But too pull all his past content from the webspace is fucking disgraceful. This guy sounds like a massive tool. You can publicly resign and criticize your former bosses, but you cannot then steal the newspaper's intellectual property. Pretend this was the NYTimes and the Online Editor did this - he would probably have criminal charges filed against him. I hope the Spec's ex-Online Editor realizes what an idiot he is being.
Posted by Reality, much? : #82 · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 8:21 AM
"Idiot"is a good start.

Do you people know there's a real world out there? Do you get the difference between even bad management and actual crime?

Whatever the corporate board may have done right or wrong, they aren't some oppressive government denying people their human rights. Or even some bunch of fat cat corporate bosses giving themselves billion dollar bonuses. They're college students doing their best or slacking off or making bad calls or good calls or whatever usual range of stuff people in those positions do.

What Ryan did though is ACTUALLY ILLEGAL - even in the unreal world of a university. Look it up. Ask a lawyer. (So incidentally whoever put his letter up on this blog just blew any chance he might have had of finding a way to keep it quiet that he's probably committed a crime. Nice friend!) And he didn't just hurt the women in charge of spec. He hurt every spec writer ever who counts on having their work accessible. He hurt spec's relationship with its advertisers. He took a stand that it's okay to suppress a newspaper if you have minor disagreements over how it should be run and lose an argument with your bosses.

And he's some kind of hero standing up to The Man?

Grow up folks.
Posted by ... : #83 (in reply to #82) · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 9:16 AM (from campus)
it's actually an interesting question. i'm assuming he wrote and/or assembled the code that drove the website. i'm also going to assume that he was never paid for that work.

under those circumstances, i'm curious who actually owns the code/infrastructure that he created. i'm sure they have a legal process in place for written submissions, but for software?

has he actually changed passwords or deleted things which he did not author? i don't think so, my guess is that he probably stripped out all the junk he did, left all the data (ie: content, probably in some weird form) sitting on the server and handed over the passwords.

if you and i go into business together, and i loan you my car indefinitely, and you build a delivery business with it, we have a falling out and i take my car back, does that make me liable for your lost business?
Posted by Hrm : #84 (in reply to #83) · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 9:31 AM
I'm not sure about physical property, but there's a federal judicial precedent that when someone develops intellectual property under the auspices of/for the use of a volunteer organization (whether the person paid or not), he/she surrenders rights to it. And you'd be hard pressed to prove Spec's Web site wasn't designed for Spec. (I am trying and failing to find literature online about the precedent, but I know I've seen it mentioned before.)

My guess is that Mr. Bubinski did not know this. Or maybe he just didn't care.
Posted by hmmm : #85 · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 9:34 AM
If he handed over the passwords why did the site stay down? If he handed over the passwords, why is he trying to extort agreements out of them?

Does that mean any time a newspaper employee doesn't like what the people in charge decide, if they're lucky enough to be in charge of the online content, it's okay for them take the site down and make demands?

Cool.

Any lawyers out there?

Posted by Hrm : #86 (in reply to #84) · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 9:37 AM
I should add: I'm guessing, though not sure, that this is contingent on the person not laying claim to the intellectual property as soon as they become aware the organization is using it (for example: if a university published material written in their capacity as a professor without their knowledge, they would probably have some recourse). But that's obviously not what happened here.
Posted by the real motivation : #87 · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 9:38 AM (from campus)
i believe you have my stapler?
Posted by Gchat status : #88 (in reply to #66) · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 10:31 AM (from campus)
That's not even true - the status was referring to a joke made in eboard and wasn't even the words you quote.

Bitter much?
Posted by mike : #89 (in reply to #66) · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 11:31 AM
That's not true!

[external link to www.youtube.com]

So get your facts straight.

[external link to www.youtube.com]
Posted by Is this it? : #90 (in reply to #84) · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 11:39 AM (from campus)
Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid [external link to en.wikipedia.org]

There's also a long article that talks about work-for-hire and websites here that mentions the above case: [external link to www.bc.edu]
Posted by well : #91 · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 11:55 AM
most publications have you sign something saying your work for them becomes their property. spec doesn't. so it seems like his code would still be his. he didn't delete everyone elses stuff - just the website he created, which happened to be the way to access everyone elses stuff.
Posted by does : #92 · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 12:30 PM (from campus)
anyone know what position they were trying to create?
Posted by gadabout : #93 · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Bwog, which feels so free in distributing information about other campus groups as though they were merely subjects for [yellow] journalism and not fellow students, is the first to freak out when a whiff of their own internal drama goes public. Its editors are the first to use "we're all fellow students together!" as a defense against criticism, and also the first to forget it. Silly!
Posted by However : #94 (in reply to #93) · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 1:00 PM (from campus)
the fact remains that your website went down, without any explanation, and with people freely tipping off others about the reasons why. Bwog is under no obligation to keep a lid on your internal drama when the internal drama has overflowed its container.
Posted by yeah : #95 (in reply to #94) · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 2:10 PM (from campus)
i'm inclined to agree. maybe not the most read, but the spec has a high enough profile on campus that something like this wasn't going to be kept quiet for long.
Posted by And they're back! : #96 · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 2:12 PM (from campus)
So, who caved in first, the rebels or the evil empire?
Posted by hrm : #97 · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Site's back up.
Posted by What? : #98 · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 3:22 PM (from campus)
I just checked it and it's still down.
Posted by y'all : #99 · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 4:29 PM
will forget about this as of wednesday.

shit won't even get a joke in the varsity show.
Posted by 100 : #100 · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 4:47 PM (from campus)
three digits
Posted by Alum : #101 (in reply to #91) · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 5:43 PM
The absence of a waiver doesn't necessarily mean you haven't surrendered your rights. It just makes the surrender harder to prove.
Posted by more of an : #102 · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 6:17 PM (from campus)
Oh snap then anything
Posted by Lara Chelak : #103 · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 10:00 PM (from campus)
I can personally attest to the fact that the entire organization is disgustingly managed. This was one of the many reasons I resigned as Ryan's co-editor last April after acting as Online Editor for an entire year and a half.

Thank god for some sense. Spectator: maybe you'll learn to embrace innovation and not stomp it out now? I doubt you'll be finding any digital talent on this campus for quite a while.
Posted by mockfrog : #104 · reply · track
October 18, 2009 at 10:06 PM
How ironic - and to think that Melissa and Ryan were an item last year when they staged a similar coup against the former Online Editor.

Google cache of Bwog comments from "No, It's Not Another Redesign" [2]

Posted by Sounds like a  : #1  · reply · track
October 16, 2009 at 10:38 PM (from campus)
SCANDALLLLL
Posted by Ugh : #2 · reply · track
October 16, 2009 at 10:42 PM (from campus)
Ok, who ratted this out to BWOG? Really now?
Posted by Bwog is on it : #3 · reply · track
October 16, 2009 at 10:56 PM (from campus)
Dig up that dirt, dig it up deep
Posted by I told them : #4 · reply · track
October 16, 2009 at 11:14 PM (from campus)
it would only be a matter of hours before Bwog got the story rolling.
Posted by I did. : #5 (in reply to #2) · reply · track
October 16, 2009 at 11:14 PM
In the previous Vag post.
Posted by Ooohhh : #6 · reply · track
October 16, 2009 at 11:37 PM (from campus)
Scandal!
Posted by Twitter : #7 · reply · track
October 16, 2009 at 11:42 PM (from campus)
"Spec website held hostage by rogue programmer?

37 minutes ago from txt"

[external link to twitter.com]

Posted by armin : #8 (in reply to #7) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 12:00 AM (from campus)
is no longer involved with spec and has no idea what he's talking about .
Posted by And you do? : #9 (in reply to #8) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 12:03 AM (from campus)
Please tell us what's happening then. The truth must be set free! (Isn't that what they teach you?) We'll be your friiieenndd....
Posted by spec reader & fan : #10 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 12:06 AM
well, this ain't good - what the f is going on?
Posted by lol : #11 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 12:16 AM
so much drama for a newspaper that matters so little
Posted by Spec-ulation! : #12 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 1:12 AM (from campus)
Ha Ha it's a pun.

So, I speculate that they got a DMCA takedown notice due to a sex video between the Publisher and an Editor that was in a secret folder, embedded in a racist comment left on one of their fact-free articles. Now where's my Pulitzer?
Posted by former spec editor : #13 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 1:25 AM
this is lame of me to bring up, but does anyone else remember that bwog comment thread from the spring of '07 in which we were all gossiping about each other? and it just went on and on? so much posturing and recrimination... good times.
Posted by nice : #14 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 2:07 AM (from campus)
i really like the new design. simple, straightforward, and a little edgy.
Posted by Lame : #15 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 2:12 AM
This kid Bubinski is a gaping asshole.
Posted by actually : #16 (in reply to #15) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 2:17 AM (from campus)
he is trying to get a point across and doing so quite effectively. his issues are legitimate and many agree with him re. his concerns, if not his methods.
Posted by ... : #17 (in reply to #16) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 2:22 AM (from campus)
what's wrong with his methods?
Posted by nice : #18 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 2:27 AM (from campus)
Ryan hope everything works out for you
Posted by Actually : #19 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 2:49 AM (from campus)
His methods (extortion and blackmail) can easily cause more harm than good for Spec. His issues are very much legitimate, and there are many staffers who agreed with him in those issues at the beginning (he did not start or even organize this conflict, though no one imagined it would evolve into this). But his latest move is both extreme and selfish and has potentially destroyed the good in the original cause. Just him stepping down would have been enough of a gesture, since no one on staff has his skill capacity.
Posted by Lame : #20 (in reply to #16) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 2:54 AM
Oh please. Prove what, exactly? That he's capable of extortion and petulance?

Having legitimate grievances isn't carte blanche to do whatever you damn please (one reason terrorism and hostage-taking are frowned on). Plenty have been burned worse by Spec and dealt with it in a more constructive fashion.

I bet potential clients will be excited to know this guy locks down data whenever the spirit so moves him. Hope he enjoys purging this mess from his pagerank.
Posted by Ok, Melissa... : #21 (in reply to #20) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 3:11 AM
whatever you say.
Posted by Lame : #22 (in reply to #21) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 3:19 AM
Sorry. Play again soon.

Great rebuttal there, btw.
Posted by that's a stretch : #23 (in reply to #20) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 3:28 AM
I wouldn't compare taking down a website you created to terrorism.
Posted by damn : #24 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 3:57 AM
is spec on some andy kaufmann style prank or do they really think it's a good idea to have an internal argument on the comments of a widely-read blog?
Posted by Alum : #25 (in reply to #24) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 4:20 AM
Who says Bwog is widely read?
Posted by Damn, : #26 (in reply to #25) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 4:48 AM (from campus)
are you out of touch
Posted by So... : #27 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM
Now that all the Spec editors are in the room, can someone please explain what the site is being held hostage over?
Posted by Bwog : #28 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 9:27 AM
You won't need to do any reporting if these speccies keep it up.
Posted by We want : #29 (in reply to #27) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 9:58 AM (from campus)
our 40 acres and a mule we were promised in January
Posted by Ron : #30 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 10:30 AM
What's amusing is how Spec editors come to Bwog when Spec is down, but I sincerely doubt Bwog staff goes to chat on Spec when Bwog is down (which rarely happens it seems).
Posted by Bad Mgmt : #31 (in reply to #19) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 11:18 AM (from campus)
"no one on staff has his skill capacity"

Well, that's fucking stupid for Spec to hire only *one* guy. This place is filled with geeks? You couldn't find an assistant?
Posted by Spec Question : #32 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM (from campus)
Do staffers get paid?
Posted by nope : #33 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 12:00 PM (from campus)
staffers don't get paid.
Posted by hahaha : #34 (in reply to #30) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 12:05 PM (from campus)
Bwog goes down all the time.

500/Internal Server Error (ie: you misconfigured something)
Posted by well : #35 (in reply to #31) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 12:06 PM
He has "assistants," they're just not nearly so talented/knowledgeable as he is. Most talented web designers can get paid for their work, thus don't design for spec.
Posted by hahahahaha : #36 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 12:13 PM (from campus)
im glad i got out of that hellhole when i did.
Posted by surlybastard : #37 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 12:13 PM
This Bubinski kid seems like a twat.
Posted by So, I guess : #38 (in reply to #8) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 12:34 PM (from campus)
Armin knew what he was talking about.
Posted by Armin Rosen : #39 (in reply to #8) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 1:31 PM
No, that was purely speculative--hence the question mark at the end.
Posted by Yes...and in fact : #40 (in reply to #39) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Lots of these comments are purely speculative.
Posted by So confused : #41 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 2:20 PM (from campus)
Wow, Spec staff, this comment thread proves you all to be more self-destructive than Eliot Spitzer.
Posted by /b/ : #42 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Twat. Good word. I almost forgot twat.

So is anyone else wondering why a paper whose only readers are also its columnists gets so much coverage when some psycho twat d-bag decides to hijack the site and screw his own future over too?

This is more entertaining than the balloon boy.
Posted by Amusing : #43 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 3:12 PM (from campus)
It's kind of amusing how Bubinski took down all of the Spectator websites, except his own ( [external link to courses.columbiaspectator.com] I wonder if Repko and gang realize they've been hosting ColumbiaClasses for several months.
Posted by STFU. : #44 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 3:17 PM (from campus)
Spec people, I know you're itching to break the story even at the expense of damaging your own paper, but breaking it gradually and with loads of misinformation in the comments on a Bwog posting is just not the way to do it.
Posted by That site sucks : #45 (in reply to #43) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 3:22 PM (from campus)
That site sucks. I signed up a week ago and still have not received the confirmation email I need to be able to log in. And it is NOT in my spam folder. Way to go, Bubinski - if that's your real name.
Posted by Ian Malcolm : #46 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 3:48 PM (from campus)
JURASSIC PARK! ROGUE PROGRAMMER LOCKS US OUT. WE ARE ALL GOING TO BE EATEN BY DINOSAURS
Posted by surlybastard : #47 (in reply to #46) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Does this mean that Bubinski resembles Newman from Seinfeld?
Posted by interesting... : #48 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 5:02 PM
bubinski's home page, which used to look like this (google cache): [external link to www.google.com] ...is now blank: [external link to ryan.bubinski.com]

i imagine that's probably because practically all of his "what I've done"/ resume-esque links are to spec-related websites. he seems to have shot himself in the foot here!
Posted by Hmm : #49 (in reply to #44) · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 5:29 PM (from campus)
Anybody out there have an internal emails they want to share?
Posted by oops : #50 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Ryan seems to have wasted his well-intentioned cause with this tirade...didn't know he was hosting Columbia Classes (which no one uses at all) on Spec's hosting though. That's awesome.
Posted by More on Bubinski : #51 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 5:51 PM (from campus)
[external link to www.linkedin.com]
Posted by Conversation continues : #52 · reply · track
October 17, 2009 at 5:58 PM (from campus)
here [external link to www.bwog.net]