|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 120 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 12 of 120:
| 
Jan 27 02:05 UTC 2000 |
For those who don't feel up to excavating the Intro conference, here's a
capsule history:
1. Robh proposes and starts the Intro conference. Goal: Avoid excess of
Agora, provide neat items from other conferences.
2. Robh does a great job FWing conferencing, finding many neat items in even
the most obscure conferences to link to Intro.
3. Here I'm a bit lost in memory. Was Intro actually the default new user
conference fora while? I think so.
4. Anonymous Web reading of conferences issue hits the fan. Robh decides
he doesn't want this, pulls out of any leadership roles on Grex.
5. Intro conference dies because of robh's absence.
Kind of sad, but a good commentary on depending on any one user to maintain
an "ideal" conference. The Intro conference was very cool, but it obviously
took some work to maintain. Grex being what it is, the person who did that
work wasn't obligated to stick around, and eventually left.
Beyond that, I don't really see how the FW of a Decorum conference is going
to be very effective. Given that FWs on Grex can't censor
(expurgate/scribble) individual responses, some annoying punk could easily
poison each item by putting in some obnoxious response.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 13 of 120:
|
Jan 27 02:45 UTC 2000 |
I had Intro on my .cf list. As I recall, newusers were given a choice of
having either Agora or Intro their default conference for a while. That
was changed when Robh quit actively FWing Intro and none of us picked up
the task.
|
aruba
|
|
response 14 of 120:
|
Jan 27 03:34 UTC 2000 |
Right - giving people a choice of default conferences when they created an
account was as far as we ever went toward making it the default.
|
mary
|
|
response 15 of 120:
|
Jan 27 12:55 UTC 2000 |
I'm really happy fairwitnessses can't censor individual responses. That
should only be in the most extreme of circumstances, under firm guidelines,
with the person knowing his/her actions will probably meet with open and
critical discussion.
Instead of trying to present people with clean and perfect items,
protecting them as some might a small child, why not instead make sure
each person knows how they can customize content to meet *their*
standards. You can filter individuals who swear. You can forget items
with discussions that offend you. Of course, this puts some
responsibility on the user, but that's just dandy.
If you want to mother people have your own children and good luck with the
project. But here, don't assume your standards will work for everyone.
They won't, thank heavens.
|
pfv
|
|
response 16 of 120:
|
Jan 27 15:17 UTC 2000 |
As far as screen-customization/layout, .cfonce is known to me..
Where/what/how is the "filter" occasionally mentioned?
(one more tidbit I can pass along to those in need.)
|
remmers
|
|
response 17 of 120:
|
Jan 27 21:24 UTC 2000 |
It's called "twit". There may or may not be documentation anywhere.
Works only via Picospan, not Backtalk.
|
prp
|
|
response 18 of 120:
|
Jan 27 21:48 UTC 2000 |
re 15 mary:
I realize many people like Agora just the way it is. You should
realize that many people don't.
I also realize some people are so deeply offended by censorship that
they also oppose anything which might possible be related, even though
it is not. There are also many people who are deeply offended by
the existence of the GLB conference. The Grex version of political
correctness applies here.
What do you tell people offended by GLB? Don't join.
What will we tell people offended by the idea of standards? Don't
join Decorum.
How would you feel about free speech if I showed up at the next BOD
meeting with a pipe band and had them rehearse?
|
prp
|
|
response 19 of 120:
|
Jan 27 21:56 UTC 2000 |
An alternative to Cutting.room.floor would be to use Agora. I don't
think I have a preference.
|
keesan
|
|
response 20 of 120:
|
Jan 27 22:27 UTC 2000 |
What is a pipe band? Does it speak?
|
aruba
|
|
response 21 of 120:
|
Jan 27 22:55 UTC 2000 |
I'm with Mary 100% on this one. Paul, if you want to create a conference
where fairwitnesses can censor responses, you will need to call for a member
vote to change the longstanding policy disallowing such censorship on Grex.
If you want an idea of how that will be received, look through old coops for
the discussion about creating the "sympathy" conference. User sidhe wanted
the same thing for that conference, and abandoned the idea when he couldn't
have it.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 22 of 120:
|
Jan 27 23:44 UTC 2000 |
Look at it this way. Grex never has had a policy, official or unofficial,
against the existance of a GLB conference. Grex has always taken a pretty
strong stance against censorship, though, so a censored conference would
represent a pretty significant change in Grex itself, which for many of us
couldn't be sidestepped by just avoiding the conference.
|
scg
|
|
response 23 of 120:
|
Jan 27 23:56 UTC 2000 |
I haven't read through the bylaws lately, but I'm guessing that policy could
be modified by the board as well, if the board were willing to do it. I'm
not saying the board would do it. If I were still on the board, I would vote
against such a policy change (as I also would in a membership vote on the
subject).
|
mdw
|
|
response 24 of 120:
|
Jan 28 01:04 UTC 2000 |
Censorship and moderation works in usenet groups, because there's an
extremely large user population, that's not very cohesive, and there is
enough of a noise problem that it is easy to justify and excuse such
extreme acts.
Censorship (& moderation) don't make much sense with small groups
(100-200 people). You're dealing with a much smaller and more cohesive
group, there is not nearly as much of a noise problem, and peer pressure
in general works and is obviously seen to work to deal with most
problems. The actual effect of censorship in such groups is *very*
pronounced, and generally extremely negative. The result is you have a
dead conference, which nobody wants to participate in.
|
pfv
|
|
response 25 of 120:
|
Jan 28 01:08 UTC 2000 |
I also expect that, should grex experience an mnut-like
"hera-hell", (where she posted some 30 or 40 'items' with the same
inanity), that cfadm or root might just slip into her account and
simply kill 'em all.. Or leave but one.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 26 of 120:
|
Jan 28 02:28 UTC 2000 |
Nope, I wouldn't expect that AT ALL on Grex.
re scg's idea that the board could change the policy. Yes, perhaps they
could. However, a member vote can overturn any board action. So, given a
proposal that is already creating dissent and controversy, I hope the
board would be sensible enough not to inject itself into the controversy
by taking an action, pro or con, that would outrage the rest of us and
guarantee a rancorous member vote.
Grex has managed in the past to come to concensus around issues that
seemed divisive at first. I suggest we give this issue plenty of time for
discussion, suggested solutions, and all-around creative thinking.
|
scg
|
|
response 27 of 120:
|
Jan 28 03:18 UTC 2000 |
If I remember correctly what the bylaws say, a membership vote and a board
vote have equal weight. That is, as far as the bylaws are concerned, the
membership can overrule the board, and the board can overrule the membership,
and if there were a strong disagreement between the two groups they could keep
overruling eachother on a given issue until one of the groups gave up, or
until the members got fed up and recalled the board. However, that's not
really an issue, since the board has historically always refused to overrule
the members, even years after a membership vote on a subject.
I've generally claimed that the members elect the board to make tough
decisions, and that the board should do so. If a member disagrees strongly
enough, they can call a membership vote. I was never able to get the rest
of the board to agree with me on that, resulting in some pretty trivial
membership votes on issues that could have just as well been dealt with by
the board.
|
other
|
|
response 28 of 120:
|
Jan 28 03:50 UTC 2000 |
this may be the perfect opportunity to revisit the idea of private
conferences. i still think this is a good concept.
basically, any user could create a conference for which they themselves
would be the moderator/fw, with full edit access, and only those people
invited by the fw would have access (in addition to staff, as root, but
that would be implied anyway). such conferences could be accessible via
backtalk to permitted users, and could be included in users' .cflists, but
would not be included in public conference lists.
this way, there is no need for a change in policy, and those who are
interested in moderated conferences can either ask to join an existing one,
or start their own.
|
other
|
|
response 29 of 120:
|
Jan 28 03:51 UTC 2000 |
should i start another item to pursue this?
|
remmers
|
|
response 30 of 120:
|
Jan 28 11:53 UTC 2000 |
It's incorrect to say that no policy change would be needed for private
conferences. A few years ago, the membership voted that all
conferences on Grex shall be public except for the staff conference.
This discussion strikes me as an effort to fix something that isn't
broken. On the Decorum conference specifically, if Paul wants it then
of course he can have it. Then it's up to him to attract interested
users. Personally, I suspect that it would join the ranks of "dead
conferences" that have been complained about elsewhere, but who knows,
I could be wrong.
|
aruba
|
|
response 31 of 120:
|
Jan 28 19:21 UTC 2000 |
(He can't have the power to censor responses, though.)
|
prp
|
|
response 32 of 120:
|
Jan 28 19:35 UTC 2000 |
"something that isn't broken", or actually something that remmers doesn't
see as broken. Many other people do see it as broken.
People nobody is proposing censorship! Unless maybe there is a Grex
policy with a really oddball definition.
By the way, what is it that fair-witnesses do? The policy seems to be
that they have to exist, but that they aren't allowed to do anything.
Grex has a very active censorship program. It is called the anti-spam
campain.
|
prp
|
|
response 33 of 120:
|
Jan 28 19:41 UTC 2000 |
Re 15 mary: "have your own children". Are you offering to carry them?
|
prp
|
|
response 34 of 120:
|
Jan 28 19:57 UTC 2000 |
Re 21 aruba:
I would look through the discussion of the sympathy conference, if I
could find it. I looked and all I found was that the conference is
almost exactly five years old, and has no items at all.
|
prp
|
|
response 35 of 120:
|
Jan 28 20:06 UTC 2000 |
Another policy question: How can the Archive confernece exist, given
that only the fair-witness can enter items?
|
remmers
|
|
response 36 of 120:
|
Jan 28 21:07 UTC 2000 |
Re #32: Right, it's my opinion. But regardless of what I think,
you can have a shot at it if you want it. The proof of the
pudding is in the eating.
|