response 112 of 624:

Dec 30 13:56 UTC 1996

I don't have a problem with *that* "may be", Jan - I don't think we should
require you to do it.  But I'd rather see the second sentence go the other
way - "Such web publications must be set up in such a way as to discourage
indexing by databases such as AltaVista." or something like that.

response 114 of 624:

Dec 30 14:38 UTC 1996

Wowch, Rob.  I know you've been asked this to death, but could you explain
one more time, what's so wrong with people-who-don't-have-accounts reading
Grex's conferences?  I'm thinking people's views toward anonymous reading must
somehow come from some basic part of their outlook on the world, something
so basic that it's too basic for them to mention here.  Or something.  Because
this feels like the abortion debate, in that people on each side of the
discussion think the arguments of the other side make no sense, but then when
you start examining the underlying assumptions it mostly goes back to whether
or not you believe a fetus is a human being and whether sex is a very serious
undertaking or a fun activity to play with.  I'm thinking there must be some
kind of basic underlying assumptions in this discussion, too, that we haven't
yet identified.  I think if anybody stands a chance of explaining the
reasoning behind why anonymous reading is a bad idea, you do, Rob.



Incidentally, the whole question of anonymous reading really isn't very
important to me.  Having Rob around here is more important to me than
anonymous reading.  So I'm not going to submit this for a vote.

response 116 of 624:

Dec 30 15:39 UTC 1996

Just a few years ago Grex took a huge step in opening up access,
a step that I think is substantially more radical than what is
being proposed here. Namely, it went from being local-dialup
only to being a node on the internet, accessible by anyone with
a telnet client anywhere in the world. It seems to me that all
of the arguments being made here against accountless web access
could have been made against that move too, perhaps even more
strongly. But interestingly, nobody did so. Does anybody here
feel that in retrospect, Grex made a wrong move and should have
remained a local bbs?

Ironically, three of the four opponents mentioned in #115
wouldn't be here at all if Grex hadn't made that huge step of
opening up access a few years ago. Yet they're so opposed to
what I think is really a much smaller step. Doesn't make sense
to me. There's a discussion item in the poetry cf. where I go
on at greater length about this. I won't repeat all that here,
but have a look if you're interested.

Guess this is all kinda moot if the proposal isn't going to be
submitted for a vote. This means the issue is left unsettled,
which is maybe too bad. But the final wording would have left
it unsettled anyway if it had passed. :/  Well, at least this
outcome proves that you don't have to be a paying member to have
influence.

So now where are we?

response 118 of 624:

Dec 30 19:35 UTC 1996

Any member can call a vote.  So Valerie isn't deciding anything by not calling
a vote, except that she personally isn't prepared to push this.

This discussion is revealing some deep differences in the way people think
about Grex and what they want from Grex.  There are plainly some issues coming
up that we aren't fully understanding or communicating about yet.  I think
until we really understand what the disagreement is about, it would be
premature to call a vote.

Personally, I'm beginning to feel that it is better for people to pass through
some kind of "doorway" when entering Grex.  You check in at newuser before
getting on for the first time, you enter a login and password before accessing
much of anything serious.  It's not a question of anonymity or security or
openness.  The doorways are open.  Anyone can go through them taking on any
name they like.

But even wide open doorways still serve an important psychological purpose.
When I surf the web, I flit from web page to web page, often unaware of what
country any particular page is in, much less what computer system it is on.
There are no boundaries.  There is no sense of place.  And I have no
identity there, I just waft through.

That's a different feeling than when I log onto a system.  When I log onto
a system I take a conscious step to enter a particular place and take on a
particular identity in that place.  I'm beginning to believe that that may
be an important defining moment for how people perceive and interact with
Grex.

We really aren't talking hard logic and technology here.  It's a matter of
feelings.  It's like the observation that people are less likely to litter
if you keep it looking neat.  Neatness doesn't prevent littering.  It's just
as easy to drop a cigarette butt on a clean floor as a dirty one.  It's not
logical, but it works.  Sure, people can be just as anonymous after running
newuser than before, but they feel less anonymous both to themselves and to
others.  The fact that everyone reading here has gone through that does
change the feeling of Grex.

response 120 of 624:

Dec 31 15:32 UTC 1996

I'm siding with Jenna and Robh, I think.  If somebody wants to
"visit" the confrences on Grex, it only takes a few minutes to creat an
account.  I don't mind of Grexers see the stuff I post... I just don't
like the idea that anybody who wants to can see it can do so
without having any kind of real connection to Grex.

A login isn't much of a connection, I realize, but at least when people
create an account, I feel that it *does* tie them to the system much
more than simply viewing a confrence, then leaving.

response 122 of 624:

Dec 31 22:52 UTC 1996

I can work myself into the paranoid state of worrying about anonymous
readers, but I agree with remmers that we have always hasd them, and there
has been no demonstrated negative consequences. In the absence of the problem
with existing anonymous readers that log in, I am willing to venture to allow
anonymous readers that don't log in. If we then can demonstrate some problems,
the problem can be discussed and solved.

response 124 of 624:

Jan 1 00:59 UTC 1997

Hmmm.  I'd have been in favour of this, but like Valerie, I want to know
what's really going on first.  I agree that it seems to be a very heartfelt
issue, which I can't understand quite.  Before deciding finally I'd want to
really understand the reasoning of those who feel so strongly against it.

But like Mary, if in the end it comes down to cliquishness, I would
regretfully vote in favour of it knowing I might lose contact with some fine
people by so doing.

*sigh*

response 126 of 624:

Jan 1 07:06 UTC 1997

Trust me, brighn is gone from here.
I know, as he and I have been on a different BBS for months now, and I have
to go there to see him anymore. If Robh goes, I certainly follow. Most of my
other important reasons for being here are gone. Why should I stay?
I would, of course, as a responsible FW, find a new FW for Sexuality II prior
to actually deleting my account. THAT is the least, and maybe the most, I owe.

response 128 of 624:

Jan 1 14:18 UTC 1997

Re 127: "Klingons do not bluff."  (Lt. Worf)

response 130 of 624:

Jan 1 16:09 UTC 1997

The Cheetah speaks:
au contraire, mon Professeur. You understand NOTHING.

Brighn is gone. Dead. Kaput.
Babozita is alive and well.
Babozita is NOT Brighn.'

The same human being might be pressing the keys.
But Brighn posted poetry. Babozita doesn't.
There are some other changes, such as the amount 
of trust. Initially, Baboztia wasn't going to
post in the conferences, either, but I guess
I'll make occasional appearances.

The main difference is the posting of anything
original or creative. And after a while,
Brighn might come back to do that.

JanC understood, or at least understood 
well enough not to insult me (Paul Kershaw).

This is not a mindgame.
(brb)

response 132 of 624:

Jan 1 17:04 UTC 1997

Sorry, Indian trying to ntalk me. I've been getting
those since I changed my handle. Something, I'm sure,
to do with the -a at the end. Sorry, though, the Indians aren't
seeking women out in particular, silly me.

Anyway, this is not a mindgame. This is how I truly
feel about it.

Misti wants help understanding. I can appreciate
that. Let me explain this once more, as well as I
can.

Who reads the conferences?
-- Active participants
-- Lurkers
-- People who join once, decide they don't like it, never come back

Believe it or not, before remmers took it uppon himself to enlighten us,
I wasfully aware of all these groups. I'll return to this list.

What is, and should be, the level of verification for users of Grex?
Verification is currently non-existent. If someone logs on as "hogtied"
claiming to be 17 and female and living in Oklahoma, then logs on again as
"stprulez" claiming to be 24 and male in living in Boston, we have no real
way of finding out. So fucking what?

What are the problems with Guest (i.e. no handle) access?
(1) The legal one. Though I don't know that it *doesn't* exist, it's violated
enough IRL that it's not worth debating anymore. It comes down to a
distribution issue. I frankly don't care about it anymore.
(2) The conceptual one. This is the one Rob and I are currently attempting
to explain, and it's a lot harder. Mary, from her comments, obviously doesn't
respect our viewpoint; that's all right, I don't respect hers. But since Misti
has given me no real reason to be hostile, I'll try to explain to her. =}

This is true for many, many people that I have talked to IRL about being on
the Net: their Net persona is different from their IRL persona, but it is very
real and very complicated. Maybe they grew up snorting too much William
Gibson; maybe I did. The differences between their Net and IRL personae might
be subtle (as with Brighn-Net and Brighn-IRL), or they might be extreme (as
with hogtied and stprulez above, and the person who takes those handles). They
might be a way to act out what the user's really like inside (common on the
BBSs) or a way to act out some small facet of the user (more common on the
MUDs and MOOs and MUSHs).

In short, in the perception of many users, particularly younger ones (note
the age differences, in general, between those arguing AGAINST this proposal;
i think rob and i are the only ones over 24 -- while those arguing FOR this
proposal seem to all be over 20 or so), the Net is a universe of identities
unto itself. People don't need verification because *you are who you say you
are*. You can be whoever you want to be. BUT YOU HAVE TO BE SOMEONE. Go into
party sometime when there's a user with an empty plan. If someone else figures
out the plan is empty, they get nervous. You can lie about IRL facts in your
plan without creating too much agitation (if any at all), but you can't in
general leave it blank.

I like analogies. Let's give an analogy. Let's say you're watching a play.
You know all of the character's names, they interact with each other. Then
one actor comes in, unidentified, and sits on the couch. Everyone else ignores
him, he never talks to anyone, in fact, all he does is sit on the couch. After
a while, he gets up and leaves as silently as he came in. If you're watching
a mystery, you could write him off as being a red herring; if you're watching
a surrealist or related genre play, you could write him off as weird. But in
a serious modern drama, what would you make of him? Pretty disturbing, I would
think. I'd expcet many people would walk out of the play saying, "Well, in
general, I liked it, but what th heck was with the guy on the couch? He really
bothered me."

To go back to the types of users who enter conferences. Yes, they're
unvalidated. Yes, people rarely run whatever program it is that lets one see
who's been in a conference and who hasn't. BUT WE CAN IF WE WANT TO. The
reason why we don't is because it doesn't bother us to know that people are
doing it. If we really wanted to we could find out who it was, maybe even
track them down and find out why they're not coming in and posting. We don't,
and anyone who claims that we do is deluded (although there might be some
individuals who do do this, I don't know). BUT WE CAN IF WE WANT TO.

It's the faceless people we mind.

Now, I have some things published. Most recently, book reviews for the Detroit
Free Press. I know (or I hope =} ) that countless people I will never meet,
I will never have names for, are reading my words. That doesn't bother me,
because I knew going into it that that would be the situation. But some people
who post on BBSs do so because they don't want to be exposed to strangers.
I think that's understandable. I'd be surprised if anyone couldn't understand
that. As far as I can tell, what remmers and mta and so on are having trouble
understanding is why anyone who doesn't want to be exposed to strangers would
post on the BBS.

Well, that's because, in our view, users of Grex are not strangers, not in
the relevant sense. They've created a Net persona (even if it's identical to
their IRL persona). They have a face. Some of them are malicious, sure. It's
often impossible to tell the extent of the malice, sure. That's not the issue.
The issue is that they have an identity. We know who they are.

John, you're a professor. You might not personally have this problem, but many
professors are put off by the new trend towards videotaped lectures. Many,
many professors are put off by the large class sizes. Why? Work load and lack
of interchange, sure, two main reasons. But another reason that is cited is
the professor doesn't know who they're talking to... "a sea of faces". It
makes people uncomfortable. It makes people uncomfortable to be talking to
just about anyone.

One difficulty actors have in the transition from stage to screen is similar.
Listen to interviews if you don't believe me. With stage acting, the people
you're performing for have faces, even if you don't have names, and even if
you can't see them well for the stagelights. There's 500 of them, no more.
You can hear them talking and laughing. YOU KNOW THEY'RE THERE, YOU KNOW
THEY'RE RESPONDING. On screen, an actor can go to a theatre (in disguise) and
listen to the audience, sure. But an actor can't go to every theater and every
audience.

Many current users of Grex, or any BBS, would be equally bothered by such a
transition, and that's precisely what you're proposing. A stage actor can
address the audience after the performance for reactions; receptions are
frequently held in smaller venues precisely for that purpose. Likewise, a
poster on Grex can address the people who enter that conference. Whether they
do or not is up to them, BUT THEY CAN.

Remmers suggests that this change is less extreme than the dialin-to-telnet
change. I disagree. The dialin-to-telnet was the result of a stageplay being
so successful it moved from the KFC Hall to the Fox Theater. Woo-hoo! But the
actors are actors, and few actors would be bothered by such a change. The
telnet-to-Web, likewise: now it's on Broadway! Yippee! But the addition of
Guest access, or the more specifically defined allowance for Grex  to appear
on any Web page (which I understood Popcorn to be saying)? Well, whoa Nellie,
Spielberg just made us into a movie. And what lots of us are saying is, we
don't want to be in a movie.

It may seem like I'm exagerrating, but this is the way I think many many users
of Grex see this change.

Some other loose ends: I whine and threaten leaving Grex every three months.
This is the most extreme measure I've ever taken -- changing my login and my
posting patterns. I cry wolf. Selena' to my knowledge, has never cried wolf.
Rob, to my knowledge, has never cried wolf. In fact, the group of people who
cry wolf is fairly small... most people don't even bother to tell anyone. They
just leave. Everytime I threaten to leave, how many users really do? (Not
because I've threatened, but just because whatever's made me uncomfortable
has made others so too.)

As to the claim of clubbishness, even cliquishness, is it a club if current
patron needs are put over potential patron needs? A store that wants to
attract a new clientele will not usually deliberately alienate their old
clientele, and the ones that do generally wind up out of business. But such
stores are not clubs.

That was the issue that caused me to finally abandon Brighn as a handle, the
"private club" accusation. I made it, and it was levelled against me, and in
both directions it's grown tiresome. Grex is not a private club. Clubs have
dues. (My accusation of clubbishness, by the way, was based in part by Scott
Helmke and Steve Gibbard both making disparaging remarks about non-members
complaining about the system. These comments were made IRL at GNOs.)

Another difference between Brighn and Babozita is that Babozita pays dues.

response 134 of 624:

Jan 1 19:29 UTC 1997

It seems that all of brighn's arguments woudl be more than addressed by making
the b\BackTalk logs publically readable.  Then you'd have a lot more
information about who had been reading things than you ever will with newuser.