response 1 of 127:

Feb 2 04:34 UTC 1995

        Sidhe, while I have no ability as a programmer, I can suggest
something which could help.  You might contact Dave Thaler
(thaler@arbornet.org) for information about his Picospan clone, YAPP.
This is the BBS program used by M-Net.  At least two users on M-Net have
run private conferences from their directories in the past, using YAPP
(compiled separately and self-contained in their directory).  YAPP has the
same security options as Picospan, with conferences limited by a ulist
file, password, or both.  It's got to be easier to use an existing program
than to write your own from scratch.

response 3 of 127:

Feb 2 18:35 UTC 1995

   This raises an interesting point for Grex.  Does Grex care if people
start creating their own private conferences?  Should we care?
   We pretty much came to the conclusion that private conferences in
PicoSpan was something that we didn't want to be done.  But PicoSpan is
an "official" piece of software here.  If someone brings YAPP over here,
and starts an "underground" conference system, do/should we do anyting
about it?  Encourage it?  Stop it?
   I've certainly never thought about this before.

response 5 of 127:

Feb 2 23:04 UTC 1995

   I'm not sure I have objections--I'm just saying that it is
something that Grex has never considered before, as far as I know.

response 7 of 127:

Feb 3 01:48 UTC 1995

        It would probably make more sense to compile a 2nd Picospan if that's
an option, with a separate directory structure for the private
conference if that's deemed necessary.  It seemed sidhe wasn't going to be
able to use the standard Picospan, and I wasn't sure if the source was
available for making a second copy.  I know YAPP is available.  It's also
pretty well tested.  All around, it's definitely a better option than
writing your own conferencing software, isn't it?

response 9 of 127:

Feb 3 02:55 UTC 1995

   I'm disturbed if the reason for wanting a new conferencing system
is for the ability to censor in it.

   There are reasons for not wanting to do that.  There are also reasons
for Grex to not want to have software on it that can get around those
original policies.

response 11 of 127:

Feb 4 12:47 UTC 1995

If people want to frequent a sympathy cf where their replies or items
can be censored by the people in charge, I don't see a problem unless
the people using don't know about the censor.  It would be interesting
to see if people feel safer in such an environment.  Could the new cf
be designed to allow anonymous entries at the respond/pass line?

response 13 of 127:

Feb 4 19:04 UTC 1995

I'm under the impression that it would cost money to get a new version of
Picospan on Grex, with a censor command for fair witnesses.  As I understand
it, if people voted to do that -- it would happen.  Though I'd be surprised
to see such a vote pass.  Getting a new version of Picospan would also
probably depend on Marcus's availability to do the programming.

(Hey Marcus, could you verify or correct what I said in this response?
Thanks!)

response 15 of 127:

Feb 4 23:40 UTC 1995

   We wouldn't need a change in PicoSpan to implement fw censoring.
If we implemented such a policy we could a) let fw's send a message
to staff asking that something be killed, b) make a script that fw's
could run to zap entries.

   The technical aspects aren't the important thing, its coming up
with a system to do it.  I personally think that consoring something
should be *rare*.  Coming up with a system for it sounds like the
start of changing that, and that bothers me.

   I don't think the incidents we've had on Grex have really warrented
removal.  This includes the item in Agora a few months ago.  I know
other feel greatly different about that issue.

response 17 of 127:

Feb 5 04:44 UTC 1995

I'm not saying I do or don't support censoring, just that since
it seems like a big thing with some people I'm sort of wondering
why no one has tried to get it voted on.
Maybe it's not as big an issue as I thought.

response 19 of 127:

Feb 5 06:11 UTC 1995

        Thank you, valerie. I have been told by jep's man that YAPP is
shareware that runs $100 to register on a system such as this. As I don't
have this kind of spare change, I'm either going to have to be really
patient, or I'll have to find another way to pull off sympathy.
        Yes, Ididn't want the items to be linkable. They should stay
where they are, and have no other sources of input, in order to create
a safe-zone for people to be open with their most tender <and vulnerable>
sides. The "censor" capability is one which I find integral to the main-
tainence of same said safety-zone. As for calling the leader of Sympathy
something other than FairWitness, I have already suggested another title;
        "Caretaker"
        A Caretaker is the one who helps keep his plants growing healthily,
while pulling out the weeds, so that the plants that belong there wil not
be threatened. If you feel a problem with this, steve, I must ask:
Why? What *precisely* is it that bothers you so much? Perhaps, my friend,
you might benefit by opening up a sympathy box of your own <the nick-
name for an item in Sympathy is a sympathy box>. I'm not being snyde, steve,
it's just when I see an objection, I like to know if there's more there than
just a personal bias. If so, please state it. Otherwise, I will be happy
to lend a more supportive ear, if it is just one of these "bad memories"
that popcorn mentioned, above.

response 23 of 127:

Feb 5 08:16 UTC 1995

I can certainly appreciate some problems with censor - it gives one
person control of another person's thoughts, in what is essentially
an "arbitrary and capricious" manner (just by virtue of the fact that
lines would be drawn, and lines are always "a and c").