|
Grex > Coop11 > #175: PicoSpan Documentation Fix - Scribble-family Commands | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 79 responses total. |
janc
|
|
response 15 of 79:
| 
Jun 5 13:39 UTC 2000 |
I'm not sure how you'd put a warning message into Backtalk. The
response form normally comes up with the page. I could put the warning
message directly over the response box on every page people read (or
just once on the first page they read (BUT NOT NECESSARILY THE FIRST THE
RESPOND TO). Alternately, you could have a warning box that pops up
after you click the [POST] button. It would have a "cancel" and
"continue" button. This wouldn't be too obnoxious if it only happened
the first time you post, but it'd be a real pain if it was there
forever. I suppose it could have a "stop showing this message" checkbox
on it.
|
mary
|
|
response 16 of 79:
|
Jun 5 15:03 UTC 2000 |
I'd not like to see anything shown more than once. Heck, even
the MOTD coming up with every login seems like overkill to me. ;-)
But something alongs the lines of my suggestion would make it
clear to folks that there is no "taking it back" and that
should they chose to publish here they are, indeed, agreeing
to be published here.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 17 of 79:
|
Jun 5 17:58 UTC 2000 |
There is still a motion being discussed and (eventually) voted on that may
make this set of changes moot.
If enough of us want the change, there may be a way to "take it back". How
about holding off on changes until the vote is over?
|
void
|
|
response 18 of 79:
|
Jun 5 20:10 UTC 2000 |
grex does not own my text. grex does not own anyone's text. grex
does not have the right to force me to continue to publish my text if i
decide to stop its publication.
|
scg
|
|
response 19 of 79:
|
Jun 5 22:27 UTC 2000 |
Out of curiosity, why would you enter text on a public bbs if you didn't want
it displayed there?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 20 of 79:
|
Jun 5 22:28 UTC 2000 |
If I screwed up, or changed my mind later when I realized a posting could
have negative effects that didn't occur to me. I wouldn't enter anything
intending to delete it later, but I'm not perfect.
|
spooked
|
|
response 21 of 79:
|
Jun 6 00:11 UTC 2000 |
You do not have to delete it. You can simply add to the item saying,
sorry I made a blunder in response # x. The problem today here is people
are scared to admit they made a mistake. They just want to act as though
they never did. We all make mistakes at times, and people are forgiving
once you admit to your mistake. Hence, all this garbage about scribbling
and retracting posted messages is dumb. Such commands are censorship are
inherently troublesome, and things would be better without them completely
- as I've maintained all along.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 22 of 79:
|
Jun 6 02:40 UTC 2000 |
Things would be better if you'd stop misusing the term "censorship" to refer
to someone's voluntary removal of their own messages. If you really believe
"censorship" applies to that, then Grex's current policy encourages MORE
censorship than closing the log would, because people who know they have no
way of removing text may be afraid to enter it in the first place, thus
censoring before the fact. Censorship is when someone else gets to decide
whether your speech should be allowed or not, or intimidates you to the point
where you're afraid to speak.
As for the rest of your post: those measures are not necessarily adequate,
and I've explained why repeatedly.
|
gypsi
|
|
response 23 of 79:
|
Jun 6 05:14 UTC 2000 |
Mic, I tried to enter an apology and clarification later (back in Winter
Agora), and I got my ass chewed by a few people for being "sketchy",
"lying", and "trying to get people on sides". So, obviously, it's NOT okay
to change your mind or rephrase things.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 24 of 79:
|
Jun 6 07:37 UTC 2000 |
This is drift from improving help/documentation, which I'm always in
favor of, but so be it: Here is an example of something I've done
before: I posted a response to the humor item, something that someone
sent me, only to be informed that it was from Dave Barry's book or
something. That's copyright infringement, unintentional to be sure,
but something that can't be corrected by me posting a follow up
saying, "Whoops, I goofed, please don't look at what I posted in
response x." As long as the response text is out there, it can be
grabbed by anyone, sent on to others, etc., which in this example would
continue the copyright infringement.
|
spooked
|
|
response 25 of 79:
|
Jun 6 07:42 UTC 2000 |
I think people need to take more responsibility for their actions, and not
run from them. Who cares if a few people chew your ass? You know you've
made an apology. They're not mature, well so be it - you can at least be
happy with yourself. They obviously are not if they're bitching at others
for trivial matters. Let them be...
|
gypsi
|
|
response 26 of 79:
|
Jun 6 08:05 UTC 2000 |
Sorry, Kevin. I keep losing track of the item subject since this discussion
is in roughly four items.
Mic - I could care less what people say. I'm just saying that it isn't
always effective to repost since a lot of people see that as stupid and
ignore the repost.
|
mary
|
|
response 27 of 79:
|
Jun 6 10:27 UTC 2000 |
Do those who think they should have the right to delete their
own text, after it has been part of the public discussion, think
they should also have the right to edit their responses, at any
time?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 28 of 79:
|
Jun 6 13:34 UTC 2000 |
No.
|
void
|
|
response 29 of 79:
|
Jun 6 14:19 UTC 2000 |
re resp:27: no.
|
aruba
|
|
response 30 of 79:
|
Jun 6 15:12 UTC 2000 |
What's the difference?
|
pfv
|
|
response 31 of 79:
|
Jun 6 15:32 UTC 2000 |
slow on the uptake, eh?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 32 of 79:
|
Jun 6 15:35 UTC 2000 |
Being able to go back and edit responses, as opposed to simply removing
them, leaves the door open for deception. If you're able to edit
responses, you can cause the record to lie about what you originally said.
If you're only able to remove them, you can leave the record ambiguous,
but you can't use it to deceive -- it is still clear that you posted a
response and then removed it.
|
janc
|
|
response 33 of 79:
|
Jun 6 18:30 UTC 2000 |
Backtalk actually has code supporting item editting, not enabled here.
It flags editted items with the date on which they were editted, so that
as part of the item header it says something like "response editted by
author on Tue Jun 6 11:32:48 2000". The original response text is saved
to the censored log.
I don't know if editting is worse or better than erasing. Either is a
sufficient fix to the problems we have been talking about (retracting
slanderous statements, accidental copyright violations, etc.). The
question is, which is more disruptive to the flow of discussion?
Editing seems like it could be more easily abused, like:
#31 by Fred Smith (smith) on Tue Jun 6 11:32:48 2000:
I like sally.
#32 by Joe Blow (blow) on Tue Jun 6 12:32:24 2000:
Me too!!!
becoming:
#31 by Fred Smith (smith) on Tue Jun 6 11:32:48 2000
editted on Tue Jun 6 14:32:22 2000:
I think sally is a bitch.
#32 by Joe Blow (blow) on Tue Jun 6 12:32:24 2000:
Me too!!!
However, if editted responses are flagged, then at least you have a clue
to what happened.
But if people *aren't* trying to be nasty, then editting can avoid
disruption to the flow, because people can erase things with greater
sensitivity and selectivity, so you might have:
#31 by Fred Smith (smith) on Tue Jun 6 11:32:48 2000
editted on Tue Jun 6 14:32:22 2000:
[This response originally contained a joke about a cat and a bald
man, which I later learned to be copyrighted material from Dave
Berry's Book "Dave Berry Bites an Octopus" book. Sorry for not
checking before posting here.]
#32 by Joe Blow (blow) on Tue Jun 6 12:32:24 2000:
That's hilarious!
That seems substantially *less* disruptive to the flow of discussion
than just deleting the response.
So it all depends on how people choose to use things. I've never been
on a system that allowed retroactive editting of postings, so I don't
know how it would work out.
In practice, if we enabled Backtalk response editting Grex, we'd have
the problem that Picospan would happily display the editted message,
but *not* any warning that it had been editted. This would be
unacceptable.
|
other
|
|
response 34 of 79:
|
Jun 6 23:37 UTC 2000 |
|
other
|
|
response 35 of 79:
|
Jun 6 23:38 UTC 2000 |
ooh. *that* was a thoughtful response... (resp:34)
|
mary
|
|
response 36 of 79:
|
Jun 7 00:20 UTC 2000 |
But isn't the argument for allowing removal of items
based on a poster owning his or her text? Why restrict
the owners' rights to just removing text and not being
able to change the wording to more closely reflect
what the author meant to say? I suppose someone could
delete their response and then re-enter it as anew but
that seems like a kludge around inconsistent policy.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 37 of 79:
|
Jun 7 01:39 UTC 2000 |
The minimum right someone has to their own text is to withdraw it from
publication. Allowing it is sufficient to protect the author's rights.
Copyright gives the author the right to remove their work from
publication, but it does not permit them to force someone else to publish
it for them in a modified form. Grex, under the law, can't force the
author to allow them to continue publishing the work (unless the author
has given Grex a license, as I discussed earlier), but it can refuse to
publish a modified version of it.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 38 of 79:
|
Jun 7 04:05 UTC 2000 |
I got used to computer conferencing on a system which *did* allow editing
of text after the fact. I've missed that feature here, especially when,
upon re-reading a response, I see an egregious error that I would happily
correct. (Misspellings, dropped words, or even clauses, etc.) As it is,
I ignore it and go on. Maybe that's better, but I don't think so.
As I've said before, the abuses y'all worry about were few and far between.
|
pfv
|
|
response 39 of 79:
|
Jun 7 14:46 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|