|
Grex > Coop9 > #55: Motion: To allow unregistered reading of all conferences | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 367 responses total. |
dpc
|
|
response 120 of 367:
| 
Feb 26 01:08 UTC 1997 |
What is the evidence that running newuser is a psychological barrier?
|
valerie
|
|
response 121 of 367:
|
Feb 26 04:02 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
nsiddall
|
|
response 122 of 367:
|
Feb 26 04:06 UTC 1997 |
Selena, I will vote no on Mary's proposal, just because I don't want to
upset you and others who feel so strongly about it, even though I feel
myself that unregistered reading is probably a good idea. Otheres are
doing the same. Please take that in the spirit it is intended, and stay in
the community, and don't make this such a divisive issue.
It just is not that important a matter of principle, either way. Not
allowing unregistered reading does not really exclude anyone who wants to
be part of Grex, and only marginally detracts from marketing efforts, if
we really want to attract new users. Allowing unregistered reading might
cause more strangers to read your posts, but nothing here is private
anyway. You have no idea who I am, for example, and anyone in the world
may sign on at any moment, and read anything on here.
These arguments have already been made. Since we have to vote on it,
let's vote, and then move on.
|
robh
|
|
response 123 of 367:
|
Feb 26 06:29 UTC 1997 |
Cannons to the right of us, cannons to the left of us, into
the valley of the shadow of Death we ride...
|
nestene
|
|
response 124 of 367:
|
Feb 26 11:30 UTC 1997 |
Re 122:
Since you've decided to vote against your own judgement based on the fact
that it would upset Selena if we did something she didn't like, may I offer
the following argument in an attempt to change your mind?
Since your vote is based on how much others will be upset, all I have to
do is be more upset, right? So, if Grex decides to bar anonymous reading,
I will hold my breath until I turn blue and whine and pout forever.
How upset do I have to be before you become more ashamed of hurting me than
you are of hurting her? How upset do I have to be before you decide to
think for yourself, rather than wimping out the first time someone whines?
Whenever things change, someone gets hurt. Whenever things don't change,
someone gets hurt. You've paid your money, make your own choice. Don't
let Selena or Tsty or Kerouac or Robh or Chelsea or Popcorn or me or
anyone else make it for you. Grex needs *your* decision, as only you can
make it; that's how democracy works.
|
remmers
|
|
response 125 of 367:
|
Feb 26 12:50 UTC 1997 |
The vote program is now enabled for voting on this proposal. As
usual, type "vote" from a Unix shell prompt of "!vote" from a
bbs or menu prompt to cast a ballot. Voting will end at the end
of the day (EST) on March 12.
|
nsiddall
|
|
response 126 of 367:
|
Feb 26 17:29 UTC 1997 |
You're right, Peter...but we are not only a democracy, we're a community, and
it is good to accomodate each other a bit. I'd like for us to be a community
of patient tolerant adults, rather than of pouting children.
|
babozita
|
|
response 127 of 367:
|
Feb 26 17:57 UTC 1997 |
Hi. Me again. don'tworry, I'm not going to get on any high horses. I just came
back because I didn't understand the parameters of the ballot and was hoping
this item would explain. It hasn't. I should like to point out that not every
member reads this conference. For this reason, the proposal is overly vague;
some members may confuse "unregistered users" with "unvalidated users". I
would recommend that, if possible, the voting booth (but NOT the motion)
include a brief explanation of the phrase "unregistered user".
Selena, if this passes and you choose to leave, I'll be glad to take Sexuality
back. (For that matter, I'm interested in co-FWing with you again, regardless,
in that conf).
Rob, if YOU choose to leave, you can find me often on
cal022011.student.utwente.nl
handle: Cheetah Whelp
(free registration, but requires a valid internet adress; a Grex account
qualifies)
As for everyone else, how I've decided to vote on this is not a reflection
on how I feel about anyone or whom it is I trust, or like. I'm not amember,
so my vote doesn't count anyway, but I am voting on principle.
The issues are trivial. It's how we treat our friends that matters. My
previous paricipation in these conversations let my friends done, and for that
I apologize.
The issues are always trivial, in both directions.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 128 of 367:
|
Feb 26 17:59 UTC 1997 |
I think everyone will still be accomodating everyone else a bit,
regardless how they vote on this. I never pout, whether I win or lose a
vote - it is all part of the democratic process. If I lose - I conclude
that I was not persuasive enough - *this time*. (Of course, not because it
was a bad idea.. B^}.)
|
robh
|
|
response 129 of 367:
|
Feb 26 18:41 UTC 1997 |
Re 127 - To reiterate yet again, I will *not* be leaving Grex
if the motion passes. I'll be resigning form the Board and the Staff,
and I will no longer participate in the conferences, but I have
every intention of keeping my account, using it for mail, party,
and other things, and I even intend to continue my membership.
(Giving my money is trivial, giving my soul isn't.)
|
richard
|
|
response 130 of 367:
|
Feb 26 19:39 UTC 1997 |
This is all contingent on how jan and steve choose to set it up. PUtting
pointers to individual items is much more of a nuisance if a user has to
be directed through a disclaimer screen encouraging them to run newuser.
If this vote passes, then it is the sentiment of the members that a user
doesnt have to run newuser, so I would hope any disclaimer screens
claiming the real sentiment is to the contrary are not used. Someone
clicking a pointer to a grex item should go directly to the marked item,
do not pass go do not collect $200.
But then again, grex doesnt own Backtalk and the authors can do what they
want in the way of enacting this policy.
|
nako
|
|
response 131 of 367:
|
Feb 26 20:59 UTC 1997 |
I just cast my second vote. Again, I voted no. It's not that I'm against
opening conferences to more readers - I'm voting for the same reasons I
voted no the last time.
Valerie has stated that changes are on the way that will increase the
bandwidth - and that's fine. I'll be glad to see it when it comes, as
it'll make my life (as well as the lives of others) easier here on Grex.
But even Valerie is "knocking on wood" about the improvements, which casts
a doubt in my mind as to just when (or if) these changes are to take
place.
I've never argued that the conferences are a bad thing - they're one of
the best things about grex. I may not agree with a lot of things
discussed, but I am thankful that I am given the opportunity to state my
opinion. It's just that right now I consider the well-being of the system
itself is of a higher priority than any particular portion of it. As far
as I can tell, mail is hosed right now, in that I cannot receive any mail
sent from outside Grex (I'll post on system problems about that). It
often takes nearly 10 minutes for my inbox to open through pine (yes, I
know Pine is slow, but it shouldn't be *that* slow) - and I could go on
with more.
As a voting member of Grex, I cannot be asked to add more to that at the
present time. Ask again when the bandwidth does increase, and I might
reconsider.
|
babozita
|
|
response 132 of 367:
|
Feb 26 21:28 UTC 1997 |
Sorry, Rob. I misunderstood.
I'm of a different opinion. I refuse to give money to an establishment whose
President has publicly stated that the only way to positively contribute is
to give money. So, for me, giving money to Grex *is* an act of giving my soul.
Then again, I was threatening to give money a long time before I actually
decided never to, so the powers that be probably just think this is more of
my crying wolf. *sigh* I hate that aspect of myself sometimes.
Kerouac, shut up. Even though I've been gone for almost two months, you're
still being an idiot.
There. I've done my Kerouac slam. I'm happy now.
|
olddraco
|
|
response 133 of 367:
|
Feb 27 00:44 UTC 1997 |
Oh boy..I still voted no, I will continue to vote no. People post on here
and expect that someone knows something about the person reading the
posts. Gee is everything on every board entirely legal here? Nope. You've
got minors exposed to explicit sexual material. Ah well, internatioanl
<sp> legalities not withstanding..you should require people to register
on here in some manner.
Flame me..doesn't matter.
|
babozita
|
|
response 134 of 367:
|
Feb 27 00:53 UTC 1997 |
There are no laws concerning the availability of pornography to minors
electronically. Pornography laws currently only apply to print and broadcast
material. The CDA was overturned, remember?
I voted the way that I did because *I* know something about the current user
base.
|
richard
|
|
response 135 of 367:
|
Feb 27 01:22 UTC 1997 |
what brighn that yo dont trust the current user base? is that what you know?
that if the rest of cyberspace is like the current user base, better to have
newuser to weed out the scum right? sheesh
|
dpc
|
|
response 136 of 367:
|
Feb 27 01:27 UTC 1997 |
I just voted "no" as well. Is this a trend? 8-)
|
scg
|
|
response 137 of 367:
|
Feb 27 06:53 UTC 1997 |
re 134:
The CDA being overturned mean that the laws that apply to the rest of
the world also apply to the Net, rather than having this new even more
restrictive form of censorship. Making the case that the Net is broadcast
media would be difficult, but applying the same standards as applied to print
media would make sense.
|
babozita
|
|
response 138 of 367:
|
Feb 27 14:30 UTC 1997 |
Not really, Steve. In both print media and broadcast media, there is a source
that can be held responsible. If the Free Press publishes something by me,
they've made sure that I've wanted it published, and they're taking the
responsibility for having edited it, etc. In Cyberspace no-one can see you
type. =} There are no checks-countercheck mechanisms, and to install them at
this point would be undue burden on the system.
Kerouac, don't put words into my mouth. And don't assume you know how I voted.
|
valerie
|
|
response 139 of 367:
|
Feb 27 16:17 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
babozita
|
|
response 140 of 367:
|
Feb 27 21:04 UTC 1997 |
You've been president for two months, Valerie. Continue as you've done and
I'll seriously reconsider, as I already have been doing. I'm also waiting for
the vote to pass before submitting membership dues. I don't want to be seen
as becoming a member only to influence a current vote; I don't like people
who do that, and I'm not going to follow suit.
Regardless of the result of the vote, I personally feel that it's an invalid
vote because of overly vague phraseology and lack of real explanation. But,
then again, this is a ditzy little board in the middle of the midwest, it
ain't the U.S. Congress. =} *g* It does bother me that certain people around
here prefer to ignore things rather than explaining why they are or aren't
doing things. I'm glad Madam President isnt following suit.
|
srw
|
|
response 141 of 367:
|
Feb 28 00:16 UTC 1997 |
For the record. Way back there. kerouac said I had voted no on the previous
proposal. He was wrong. i voted yes. He probably wasn't listiening to any of
the many times that I'v said that I prefer the compromise to the
uncompromising proposal. I prefer that one to no unregistered reading.
As A backtalk author, I would also like to point out that Jan and I do not
control how backtalk is used on Grex. The Grex board and members do that.
|
mary
|
|
response 142 of 367:
|
Feb 28 00:36 UTC 1997 |
I trust that our membership either knows the difference between
registered user and validated user or knows how to follow the
directions to this discussion and ask.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 143 of 367:
|
Feb 28 01:51 UTC 1997 |
A summary would be helpful to us erratic users/members/folks.
|
babozita
|
|
response 144 of 367:
|
Feb 28 14:11 UTC 1997 |
Mary, enough people in the previous discussions have gotten the two confused
that your assumption has been proven inaccurate.One can hope you're never in
charge of drafting a vote that actually counts.
|