One week after voting to punish seven freshmen with a year's suspension for a widely publicized computer prank, the Administrative Board yesterday overturned its decision, putting the students instead on disciplinary probation.

The seven, all residents of Weld and Strauss Halls, chose to appear before the Ad Board yesterday in 30-minute interviews to appeal last week's verdict.

The Ad Board initially required the seven to withdraw after they entered the Science Center computer system by telephone on two consecutive nights last month and made it repeatedly print out, "This computer test sucks."

Relieving Tensions

The prank came during the final days of testing for the computer portion of the Quantitative Reasoning Requirement (QRR), a mandatory test for all freshmen. The pranksters said that they were trying to relieve the frustration of the more than 600 freshmen who had still not passed their QRR test.

QRR teaching fellows had to turn off the printer to stop the message from coming out. Some freshmen lost the programs they had written and sent to the printer to pass the test and had to retype them, said participant Jay Ramaswamy, who will be on probation until next spring.

The seven also used another student's computer account, one said. However, freshmen familiar with the incident asserted that the prank involved nothing more than the rudimentary commands needed to pass the test.

The Ad Board last week also put an eighth freshman, Kevin D. Collins, on disciplinary probation for one year for his part in the prank on one of the two nights. But Collins could not appeal his punishment.

Only students required to withdraw have the right to an appeal, said Thomas A. Dingman '67, assistant dean of the College for the house system and member of the Ad Board. Dingman yesterday acted as advocate for one of the seven. He refused further comment.

Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III also refused comment. The students themselves confirmed their reduced sentences.

Person to Person

The implicated freshmen yesterday said they feel their personal appearances were key factors in the outcome of their appeal.

"They were able to get a much better idea of who we were," said Marcus Q. Mitchell. "We wanted to be totallyhonest. There was no question we couldn't answer,"Mitchell said.

Mitchell, who will be on disciplinary probationuntil the spring of 1987, said that a personalappearance at the initial Ad Board meeting lastweek could have averted the first verdict. SaidMitchell, "You've got to know the kid before youcan make the decision."

"I think a personal appearance is necessary toget a fair verdict." said Gregory P. Gicewicz, whowill also be on probation until next spring.