|
Grex > Coop9 > #27: Motion: To allow anonymous reading via Backtalk | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 624 responses total. |
robh
|
|
response 136 of 624:
| 
Jan 1 20:13 UTC 1997 |
I hate to interrupt the flame-fest, but in the spirit of
compromise, I'll once again suggest making one or two of
our conferences available via anonymous access, while keeping
the rest closed. (An idea I've shamelessly stolen from
the River.) This way, Web surfers can get some idea what
we're about, without really changing the nature of Grex (IMHO).
All bbs users would know the confs were "open to the public",
so as long as f-w's are careful about asking permission to
link items to these places, nobody will be caught be surprise.
To follow brighn's analogy, the New York Metropolitan Opera
does videotapes of its performances once in a while and shows
them on PBS, but that doesn't make them a television program.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 137 of 624:
|
Jan 1 20:30 UTC 1997 |
I am afraid I skimmed a lot of #132, and may have missed a lot, but I think
I get the general drift. I understand the point babozita is raising about
the conceptual difference between someone who has *joined* grex by running
Newuser, and someone who is just lurking via the web. I think that in general
it is a bad idea to discriminate based on that difference, but...I can see
how fairwitnesses of conferences might care about the sense of community it
would give. It strikes me that a good idea might be to open Agora and d
Intro, and let fairwitnesses of other conferences decide for themselves
whether or not to open them up for anonymous balktack reading.
erm, backtalk.
|
ryan1
|
|
response 138 of 624:
|
Jan 1 21:00 UTC 1997 |
I agree with Rob in resp:136
Maybe there should be a Conf entitled "Public" which would be accessible
from the web.
|
robh
|
|
response 139 of 624:
|
Jan 1 21:16 UTC 1997 |
Another good idea.
|
nephi
|
|
response 140 of 624:
|
Jan 1 22:23 UTC 1997 |
Number 132 contains some very convincing arguments. I
think I understand now why this issue evoked such visceral
reactions in people and applaud babozita for helping me to
understand. I really appreciate how difficult it is to
discuss such an intangible issue.
I do think it would be nice to have the Intro conference
web accessible. I hope the humor item from Agora will get
linked there, since that is what I really wanted to link
to my homepage. 8^)
|
scott
|
|
response 141 of 624:
|
Jan 1 22:42 UTC 1997 |
I'm bothered a bit by babozita (formerly brighn)'s arguments about on-line
versus real-life personas. Acting out different personas on-line is OK, but
I really don't see where Grex is supposed to be a haven for it. Grex's
mission is to provide access. Nowhere does it say anything about protecting
content versus making content public. If more people can see what I post,
well, it's not unexpected, since I figure anything I post could end up just
about anywhere anyway.
|
babozita
|
|
response 142 of 624:
|
Jan 1 22:54 UTC 1997 |
As a member, I would vote for a proposal that makes Agora and Into open, and
allows FWs to decide on other conferences (unanimous decision when there's
more than one FW).
As a member, I would never vote for a proposal that makes all conferences
open, regardless of the opinion of the readers of that conference.
I believe I voiced this stance the *last* time this topic came up.
I also find posting of mail ethically disgusting and disturbing. We had *that*
discussion here at least once before, as well. While perfectly legal, it is
disturbing; if I had intended that to be a public comment, I would have made
it one. Then again, if I'd wanted it publicly known (immediately) that I was
reading Grex under a different handle, I'd've announced that too. I'm so glad
that John and Mary Remmers found each and fell in love. I think married
couples should share ethical viewpoints, or lacks thereof.
|
scg
|
|
response 143 of 624:
|
Jan 1 23:02 UTC 1997 |
Grex's stated purpose, somewhere, I think, is the sharing of ideas. To that
end, the more people who we can provide with access to our ideas, the better
we can share them. I'm not going to do anything like threatening to leave
or resign, or threatening to leave, and then coming back wiht a different
login claiming a different "online persona," but if Grex decides to restrict
access to the conferences I will be extremely disapointed. What is this about
people who don't alredy know what we are enough to really want an account here
people who don't already know what we are enough to really want an account
here not being good enough for us?
I don't know how others here treat systems tehy don't know anything about,
but generally when I run into a system that I want to look at, which makes
me create an account first, I either go away deciding it isn't worth the
trouble, or I create an account with a password that I'm not going to remember
5 minutes later. After all, chances are I'm not going to ever look at that
site again anyway. On the other hand, if I can look site adn see that it has
something I'm interested in, I'm far more likely to come back and use it
again, maybe even creating an account.
We're not talking about putting up Grex conferences in a way that web search
engines would find them. We're not talking about posting them on bulletin
boards all over town, or selling them in book stoes, or even snail mailing
them to random people. All that's being talked about here is letting people
see what Grex is, so they can decide whether they want to run newuser and join
in, or whether they'd be more interested in going off and doing something
else, theus not wasting their time in creating the account, or ours in
deleting it.
But, rational arguments don't seem to have much effect here, as people seem
much more preoccupied with making empty threats. If I start making empty
threats about changing my login, or my "online persona," will people suddenly
start agreeing with me on this issue, to avoid hurting my feelings?
|
mta
|
|
response 144 of 624:
|
Jan 1 23:19 UTC 1997 |
Thank, Paul. It isn't my point of view, but now the strong feelings make more
sense. To carry out your analogy, I would consider putting the conferences
on the web more akin to taking a play from the theatre to a stage in the
middle of a field at a Shakespeare or Middeval festival. A larger, much more
transient audience, true ... but not so very different. I can however see
where your movie analogy would be very uncomfortable if that's what you see
happening. I suppose the difference is that I feel I've only gotten feedback
from an extremely small minority of my readers anyway...and since the observer
status exists in conferences, I've never been able to be sure who saw my
posts. That makes the difference feel small to me.
Also, I'm nearly 40 (interesting that the split seems to be down age lines...)
and my persona here is simply a slightly more outspoken version of my everyday
persona. That may be a function of age. I experimented with many personas
in my youth, too. (It was kind of a pain doing that ftf, let me tell you!
<g>)
I think many of the advantages I see in opening the conferences on the web
would be met by putting a subset on the web. Agora, certainly, and Intro.
And perhaps any conference whose participants like the idea.
|
robh
|
|
response 145 of 624:
|
Jan 1 23:40 UTC 1997 |
Re 143 - Which is why I didn't want to tell anyone about my decision,
because I didn't want it to be perceived as a threat. But I assure
you, it's not a bluff. My own feeling is, if the members of Grex
really want to destroy the one thing I consider unique about our
conferences, then the problem is mine, not theirs, and it's time
for me to move on to another conferencing system.
If you want to leave because we don't allow anonymous access, that's
fine with me. I'm not about to stop anyone from leaving.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 146 of 624:
|
Jan 2 02:19 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
janc
|
|
response 147 of 624:
|
Jan 2 04:21 UTC 1997 |
(I don't think the split is down age lines. Brighn and Robh aren't that young
and Scg isn't that old, and given the small number of people really arguing
this that is already too many exceptions.)
(I don't concede to people just because they make threats about leaving, but
I do read that as one of many possible indications that people feel strongly
about this. If people feel strongly about this, then it is apporpriate to
make sure you understand their feelings before making a decision.)
I think opening only Agora and Intro would be a plausible compromise. I
haven't thought about how I would go about implementing that, but there are
several possible ways.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 148 of 624:
|
Jan 2 05:10 UTC 1997 |
(I'd be interested in opening the confs where I'm a fw, too. But I've got
co-fws in several conferences, plus conference users, all of whom should be
in on the decision, I guess.)
|
babozita
|
|
response 149 of 624:
|
Jan 2 05:46 UTC 1997 |
I apologize for what was perceived of as a threat.
IT was not intended to be one. I was feeling frustrated, and I say stupid
things when I'm feeling frustrated.
This does not change the quality of my arguments one iota. If Steve and Scott
and Mary had substantial arguments, they would cease from attacking my debate
methods and attack the substance of my comments.
Such an attack is called an ad hominem. I'm not talking about the net-abused
version of this phrase, which stands for any old insult. I'm talking about
the traditional attack on the person's discourse style or personality traits
as a means of devaluing the argumentation.
Ad hominems are irritating. I storm out of arguments all the time. It doesn't
mean my points are any less valid. I am resisting the urge to continue such
immature tactics. I would humbly request that others do likewise.
The longer this conversation goes on, the more people I'm putting on my list
of people never to talk to again. I came back to Grex with a different handle
because I made a commitment not to use "Brighn" anymore, but also because I
didn't think the many, many decents users of Grex who happen to be friends
of mine should be sluffed off because ,of a few people I happen to disagree
with. I wrote in a melodramatic letter to Popcorn that "sometimes principles
are more important than friendships." I thought about that, and decided that
no, in the main, friendships are more important than principles.
Grex is about community, or so the allegation goes. In every community, there
are people who hate each other. I have grown to despise a few people that I
previously thought were decent folk, over this conversation alone.
Steve, Scott, John, Mary, Misti> (sorry to put the last one in that set, since
i *don't* hate her) Why have you not commented on the compromise that Rob
offered (or if you have, pardon me for having missed it)?
|
e4808mc
|
|
response 150 of 624:
|
Jan 2 06:46 UTC 1997 |
I read several conferences anonymously (as an observer). A friend of mine
who is only a participant in Agora and Coop reads many conferences as an
observer. How is this "observing" different from webbrowsing? No one in the
conferences can ever find out which ones we have observed, and what we have
done with the material found there. How much more "anonymous" can you get?
Over Christmas, I showed someone how to telnet in and observe [s/he was a
*real* privacy freak] without ever joining any conference.
Are we going to disallow this? Or is this a "user" perk that is only allowed
to people with logins?
|
scg
|
|
response 151 of 624:
|
Jan 2 07:21 UTC 1997 |
The "compromise" of having only Agora and Intro available to people on teh
web is still a huge retreat form the openness that Grex has had for years.
I don't like that idea much more than I like the idea of locking out
everything. What is Grex for, if not to be able to share our thoughts with
a wide variety of people?
|
robh
|
|
response 152 of 624:
|
Jan 2 08:28 UTC 1997 |
Re 150 - Since running newuser is such a trivial task (as just
about everyone here has conceded), I don't see why asking people
to register before observing the conferences is a big deal.
Check out my earlier response about symbolic gestures, if you
haven't seen it already.
|
remmers
|
|
response 153 of 624:
|
Jan 2 11:24 UTC 1997 |
Steve Gibbard makes excellent points in responses 134, 143, and
151, as does Catriona Davis in 150. They sum up my viewpoint to
a tee. Rather than try to add anything myself, I'll just
recommend that people re-read them.
Bringing the issue to a vote would at least mean that it would
be decided by one-member-one-vote rather than who can talk the
loudest and longest.
|
scott
|
|
response 154 of 624:
|
Jan 2 12:06 UTC 1997 |
I agree with scg.
At the risk of being irratating, why does willingness to talk a lot make
someone's arguments stronger?
|
kerouac
|
|
response 155 of 624:
|
Jan 2 16:44 UTC 1997 |
This goes to the question of whether the Fair Witness *owns* a conference.
I think there are plenty of people who post in poetry who would want or
wouldnt mind people reading their stuff anonymously.
I do not think it falls within the rights of the Fair Witness to censor
other people's posts. But as I have stated before, I believe the author
of an item should have control of that item.
Therefore, I think a compromise would be that anonymous readers should be
able to read all conferences, *but* the authors of individual items should
have the option of closing that particular item to outside access. So if
Jenna wants to enter a particularly sensitive poem, she can limit access
to it to only those who belong to the conf.
This would require some coding, but basically I'm thinking of changing:
"ok to enter this item?"
to
"ok to enter this item for universal access?" (y/n)
then
"ok to enter this item for access to members of this conf only?"
This gives control over access to the author of the item, who in my
opinion is the only person who should be allowed to make that decision.
|
babozita
|
|
response 156 of 624:
|
Jan 2 18:02 UTC 1997 |
I think if one side i willing to compromise, the other side should to.
I don't see why you people are having such a hard time seeing our perspective,
when I have no trouble seeing yours.
And yes, I think observer mode should be disabled. Especially since it's not
one of the options that comes up when you type j CONF. That makes observer
mode a special trick that only veterans are likely to know.
A compromise is another sort of symbolic gesture, Rob, clearly these people
care more about their own viewpoints than symbolic gestures. I read that to
mean that they care more about potential users than current users. Since
current users have already (for the most part) made it clear whether they're
likely to be paying members or not, it seems that they care more about
potential paying members than current nonpaying users.
Which means that there's a profit motive.
Which means that there's a potential copyright infringement.
(Yes, kids, don't try to tell me that NPOs can't have profit motives.)
It's been clear to me that this has been about increasing member base all
along. User base doesn't need an increase, not when there's a queue 23 hours
a day during non-holiday times. Legal threats alone, if this is about member
base increases, and stomping all over current (non-paying) users (who besides
robh on this side of the fence currently pays dues? who on the other side of
the fence doesn't?) to increase user base in order to increase member base,
than this is inimical to Grex's goal of not treating non-member users
differently than members.
If this isn't about membership, then a symbolic gesture would be to open this
proposal vote alone up to all users, not just verified members.
If this is about membership, then maybe y'all should just say you think
members should have more rights than non-members. Which is what two of you
have already said to me privately anyhow.
|
babozita
|
|
response 157 of 624:
|
Jan 2 18:03 UTC 1997 |
(that "legal issues alone" should have been "legal issues aside")
|
dpc
|
|
response 158 of 624:
|
Jan 2 18:33 UTC 1997 |
Well, I'd vote for just opening Intro and Agora to non-registering
Web folks, *plus* posting a notice on the login screens of both
these conferences stating that anything may be viewed by people
who are not registered.
"Perception is reality." This is about perceptions--in
addition to on-line versus real-life personas. I confess that
I've never run a pseudo or pretended to be anyone else except
plain old (well, not *that* old) Dave Cahill. I don't think
the split is along age lines. Perhaps it's along mental-health
lines? (Just kidding.)
I also don't care for the posting of mail, but I would rather
not get into ad-hominem issues on any side.
|
jenna
|
|
response 159 of 624:
|
Jan 2 19:05 UTC 1997 |
Kerouac - there is a discussion of this in regards
ti Artistic work in the poetry conference.
Aside from Remmers, one person has expressed support for opening
it anonymously and about 6 have said they think a ompromise would
be a better idea. Go read it, jack.
--
Leaving intro and agora open would give peopole
a chance to sdee what its like here without making undue efffort.
Anyone who's really interested has every right to then make
an account, lik everybody else. I see this as a rational
compromise, whether or not we all understand each others reasons
for viewing the whole issue different.
(ly)
|
popcorn
|
|
response 160 of 624:
|
Jan 2 20:39 UTC 1997 |
Well, but I'd love to entice people from elsewhere on the net with cool
cooking discussions and recipes from the Cooking conference. I wouldn't be
at all surprised to see some proponents of the same thing for the music
conference. I'm not sure who would decide for each conference. But
personally, speaking as a Grex user, I *would* like to see those conferences
available to anybody on the web.
|