|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 299 responses total. |
keesan
|
|
response 100 of 299:
| 
Apr 1 03:48 UTC 2005 |
Would it help, Richard, if users were not allowed to send more than maybe 25
mails per hour? Or more than 1MB per hour?
|
other
|
|
response 101 of 299:
|
Apr 1 06:41 UTC 2005 |
I think a /. type rating system requires a critical mass of users we no
longer have.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 102 of 299:
|
Apr 1 14:10 UTC 2005 |
Re #98: Read a little closer, junior. While I suspect you're hiding behind
the hypocritical notion that grex is private and therefore you can
continue to "support" anti-censorship by the government while doing
privately the very thing you criticize, in fact the EEF is involved in the
anonymity issue as well. Go to http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Anonymity/ This
link is found on the EEF's *censorship* Blue Ribbon page. That page also
links to http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Anonymity/cyberslapp.php
Historical revisionist bap may also want to visit those pages so he can lose
his massive ignorance about the role of anonymous speech in the history of
America. I won't hold my breath, though.
LOSE THE RIBBON!
|
spooked
|
|
response 103 of 299:
|
Apr 1 14:15 UTC 2005 |
Moreover, the twits could create multiple accounts voting off everyone but
themself/ves.
|
tod
|
|
response 104 of 299:
|
Apr 1 16:50 UTC 2005 |
re #93 & 94
I think the best solutions are technical solutions that allow people to
filter out the annoying vandals.
I totally agree. The best way to deal with the boobs is to shut them out of
your viewing at your discretion. FW's shouldn't waste time censoring nor
should they feel 'entitled' to censor entire items unless criminal content
is the cause.
|
remmers
|
|
response 105 of 299:
|
Apr 1 17:48 UTC 2005 |
Must confess that I don't follow the logic of #102 at all. The item
deletions of last year, unfortunate though I believe they were, had
nothing to do with the issue of anonymity.
Suppose I have a blog and exert editorial control over comments that
readers enter - e.g. moderate them, or remove off-topic comments, or
remove ad hominem attacks, or don't allow anonymous comments, or
whatever. Does that mean that I don't support free speech and am
morally enjoined from displaying the EFF blue ribbon? I don't think so,
and I doubt that the EFF thinks so either.
I'll remind folks that in the aftermath of last year's item deletions, a
policy *was* passed by the members that addresses the issue of when
items may be deleted. It's arguably not a perfect policy, but in my
opinion if the policy had been in place in January of 2004, the item
deletions that took place then would have been in violation. So it's
not as if the Grex membership didn't see a problem with the deletions
and refused to take steps to prevent a recurrence. You can read the
policy here: http://www.grex.org/grexdoc/archives/votes/vote17
That said, I don't think that fairwitnesses should be given expanded
duties or powers for content control over what they have now. I think
that'd be an instance of the "cure" being worse than the disease. I'd
like to see a technical solution that helps users control their
environment here to the degree that they want to, is not too
labor-intensive, and mostly runs itself. I think that's a harder
problem than it might appear at first glance. I'm mulling it over but
don't really have any ideas to present at the moment.
|
richard
|
|
response 106 of 299:
|
Apr 1 18:24 UTC 2005 |
re #105 remmers said:
"I'd like to see a technical solution that helps users control their
environment here to the degree that they want to, is not too
labor-intensive, and mostly runs itself."
But see the problem isn't with the current regular users, we can deal
with this stuff or tolerate it. The problem is with new users, people
who come to grex for the first time, look at agora full of bs posts and
they don't participate. They leave. Even if everybody has a twit
filter, the twittified posts are still out there and new users still
see the twittified posts. The idea is that the conference needs to be
cleaned up so that new users, not regular users but NEW users, don't
come here and see those posts.
My feeling is that the only way to do that is to remove the posts. If
a newuser comes here and sees fifteen dozen censored posts that he
can't read, he is going to wonder what is going on. Grex needs to be
concerned with what sort of environment is presented to outsiders, how
clean do grex's main conferences look to outsiders. It is an important
consideration and not something a system wide twit filter is going to
solve entirely.
I simply think the time has passed where these confs can be essentially
unmoderated. It is a nice ideal but we don't live in a perfect world
and people won't come here and participate in the confs if those confs
look cluttered and uncontrolled.
|
richard
|
|
response 107 of 299:
|
Apr 1 18:34 UTC 2005 |
re #105 http://www.grex.org/grexdoc/archives/votes/vote17
I'd like to see this policy amended to include that any posts
containing homophobic or racist slang for no good purpose will be
removed, and any posts reprinting party logs for no good purpose will
be removed as a rule
|
tod
|
|
response 108 of 299:
|
Apr 1 18:34 UTC 2005 |
re #106
But see the problem isn't with the current regular users, we can deal
with this stuff or tolerate it. The problem is with new users, people
who come to grex for the first time, look at agora full of bs posts and
they don't participate. They leave. Even if everybody has a twit
filter, the twittified posts are still out there and new users still
see the twittified posts. The idea is that the conference needs to be
cleaned up so that new users, not regular users but NEW users, don't
come here and see those posts.
That is censorship. Go live in China if you don't like free speech.
|
tod
|
|
response 109 of 299:
|
Apr 1 18:36 UTC 2005 |
re #107
I'd like to see this policy amended to include that any posts
containing homophobic or racist slang for no good purpose will be
removed, and any posts reprinting party logs for no good purpose will
be removed as a rule
I'd like to see you get married, enjoy some Richard Pryor videos, and go serve
2 stretches as a cook in the Army but we can't have everything.
|
richard
|
|
response 110 of 299:
|
Apr 1 19:07 UTC 2005 |
tod, we don't live in a perfect world and grex can't be perfect. I
think grex's conferences, at least agora, are in a deplorable state at
the moment. would you rather see users driven away and grex's agora
become an oasis of meaningless drivel as opposed to having the least
little bit of censorship? I think you are applying too broad a
standard for censorship. It is one thing to censor one's opinions, it
is quite another to censor meanspirited foul mouthed crap. Grex should
be taking care of its confs, not running them on autopilot and watching
them die
|
albaugh
|
|
response 111 of 299:
|
Apr 1 19:13 UTC 2005 |
> FW's shouldn't feel 'entitled' to censor entire items
> unless criminal content is the cause.
I don't agree that this is the only reason for which FW's could / should
retire or delete items.
|
tod
|
|
response 112 of 299:
|
Apr 1 19:33 UTC 2005 |
re #110
would you rather see users driven away and grex's agora
become an oasis of meaningless drivel as opposed to having the least
little bit of censorship?
"little bit of censorship"? How do you regulate such a thing when you begin
restricting and infringing on the freedom to read and speak everyone's
expressions? Your desire for a false sense of security in gaining new users
ignores the current user and membership's desire for unmitigated discussions.
I would not feel comfortable giving the right of censorship to the staff.
Grex has already proven that it does not care to restore discussions and
instead prefers to diguise its censorship as favoritism for "friends."
|
richard
|
|
response 113 of 299:
|
Apr 1 20:27 UTC 2005 |
staff already HAS the right of censorship. It has censored items in
the past. It will no doubt censor items in the future. I had an item
censored in agora over a year ago, not by a fw but by staff
(specifically marcus watts), because I had copied over a portion of an
mnet item into a grex item during a discussion of who owns copyright on
posts. Grex is not publicly owned, it is a PRIVATE corporation, owned
by its membership. So posting on grex is not like speaking on a
sidewalk, it is like posting to a privately owned bulletin board. Grex
posting is a PRIVILEDGE, it is not a right.
Certain users have repeatedly abused that priviledge. I am saying that
the board/staff of grex have the right to not condone that. If they
want to insist on more moderation of the confs, or add a few more
restrictions on posts that won't be tolerated, that is their right and
prerogative. You have the right to join Grex and vote against the
board members who do this if you want.
My feeling is that the users of Grex are so beholded to the idea of
having no rules and no censorship that they bully the board/staff into
not taking care of Grex, or more specifically, its conferences, at
all.
I think that nothing is wrong with Grex requiring a few basic standards
of behaviour in exchange for the priviledge of posting here. Such as
1. don't re-post party transcripts in a conference without the
permissions of the other people involved in that chat. people should
be able to chat on Party to the small group of people on Party at that
time, without being concerned that anything they say might be cut and
pasted, their words taken entirely out of context, and posted into
Agora or some other conference. Why should Grex tolerate this?
2. grex need not tolerate somebody posting an item on grex just to call
another person a vulgar term for homosexual, or a vulgar term for the
female anatomy or such. Requiring a little taste and decorum does not
equal censorship. Censorship would be disallowing a topic altogether.
I'd be against a systemwide twit filter because even some users who are
twits can learn to post reasonable posts. People can grow up. It
happens. Look at Ryan, he's a good quality member and poster now,
because he has gotten older, but he was a little kid once years back
who used to have heat with staff. People change. I'd rather have
moderators enforcing a few common sense rules, than have filter upon
filter upon filter. It doesn't look good to have all these filtered
posts, and I think some of the people pushing this are techies who are
searching for a technical solution for what ISN'T a technical problem.
The more filters you put up the more you encourage people to try and
find ways around them. I'm saying deal with the issue rather than
continually trying to block the issue and pretend it doesn't exist.
|
tod
|
|
response 114 of 299:
|
Apr 1 21:37 UTC 2005 |
re #113
You have the right to join Grex and vote against the
board members who do this if you want.
I am/have been a member, ran for Board, and do vote on these issues. I'm here
discussing it right now, too. I do not agree that staff has carte blanche
censorship rights.
|
richard
|
|
response 115 of 299:
|
Apr 1 21:58 UTC 2005 |
It isn't a matter of staff having "rights", its a matter of staff
having no restrictions. I am not aware of the board having many set
rules for staff. valerie mates was staff and she removed all of her
past posts, and deleted entire items that she had created, because
nobody told her she couldn't do it. If staff does not have explicit
restrictions against doing something, they have implied carte blanche
rights to do it. It is up to the board to reign in staff if it is
deemed necessary. But it is not a matter of "rights", everybody has
privileges here, nobody has any "rights" here. This is a private
system supplied by its members for open public use.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 116 of 299:
|
Apr 1 23:08 UTC 2005 |
Re #105: If you don't understand the logic, go to the EFF site and maybe it
will be clearer. The EFF equates censorship with restrictions on free speech.
It also mentions that the ability to remain anonymous is also a worthwhile
goal that not only furthers free speech but also has a deep historical
tradition in the birth of the US. Your example of a blog is a private matter
that would not be tolerated if done by the government. As a private citizen
you are free to do so. I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy in claiming to
support preventing government censorship while doing so privately. That is
not a legal argument, it is a moral one. Comprende?
Lose the ribbon; ya'll are hypocrites.
|
richard
|
|
response 117 of 299:
|
Apr 1 23:14 UTC 2005 |
#116 cyklone, grex is under no obligation to meet any "moral"
standard. Grex can be hypocritical if it pleases to do so. Nobody has
any rights here. If you want the priviledge of posting here, you
should be willing to accept any rules grex imposes
|
scholar
|
|
response 118 of 299:
|
Apr 1 23:52 UTC 2005 |
How does "accept any rules grex imposes" mesh with your previous contention
that people who don't like the rules ought to stand up to them?
|
tod
|
|
response 119 of 299:
|
Apr 2 01:12 UTC 2005 |
re #117
From the 501c3 application:
"Grex provides a wide range of services to the community that further the
mission of Cyberspace Communications: "
line 2 states
"2. A simple registration process enables users coming in from either the
dial-in lines or the Internet to create Grex accounts for themselves. This
process is designed to be as barrier-free as possible, encouraging the widest
possible range of users to access our system. Users are not required to pay
any fees, nor are they required to give any information about themselves.
Accounts are created immediately and there is no delay in gaining access...."
"...Our open registration policy also supports our educational mission."
line 4 further states
"..Our broader educational mission is served by providing and maintaining
these discussion forums where the content is entirely generated by the users.
The wide range of users attracted by our open access policy ensures a wide
range of knowledge and opinion. On-line forums are very effective in drawing
people with diverse backgrounds into shared discussions..."
I don't see the word CENSORSHIP in there. I see "wide range of knowledge and
opinion."
Are you saying Grex should ditch it's 501c3 status?
|
coopconference
|
|
response 120 of 299:
|
Apr 2 01:25 UTC 2005 |
I think filters are a very bad idea, as they can confuse and leave uninformed
a user who has already questionable intelligence. Consider user ryan, a
person who matches the above criterion. Read very carefully what user naftee
wrote, and what he wrote immediately afterwards (he has a filter that prevents
him reading what user naftee writes):
---- naftee joining (Apr 1 20:06)
naftee: whoops
naftee: i think i filled up /var :(
naftee:
---- naftee leaving (Apr 1 20:07)
munkey: nice
ryan:
ryan: hmm
ryan: var is full
---- tod leaving (Apr 1 20:13)
|
cyklone
|
|
response 121 of 299:
|
Apr 2 02:16 UTC 2005 |
Re #117: Yes, Richard, I already know grex fails in the moral standards
department. Your honesty is refreshing inasmuch is you implicitly recognize
in your statement that the Blue Ribbon is not fit to be displayed on Grex.
If others would be as enlightened as you, and recognize grex for what it is,
a personal playground for the favored few, the removal of the Blue Ribbon
would not even be subject to debate.
Lose the Ribbon!
|
naftee
|
|
response 122 of 299:
|
Apr 2 03:53 UTC 2005 |
who shot the sherrif
f
|
cross
|
|
response 123 of 299:
|
Apr 2 03:53 UTC 2005 |
I agree. Let's ditch the blue ribbon. Call a spade a spade.
|
scholar
|
|
response 124 of 299:
|
Apr 2 04:56 UTC 2005 |
But first we have to call the deputy.
|