|
Grex > Coop13 > #82: Member proposal restricting staff's ability to delete conference items. |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 108 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 15 of 108:
| 
Jan 13 21:12 UTC 2004 |
I'd love to discuss this proposal but I don't think there has been enough
focus on the existing policies to make such recommendations.
|
aruba
|
|
response 16 of 108:
|
Jan 14 03:01 UTC 2004 |
Not if this proposal passes they couldn't. I think the proposal is to
rigid, so I will be voting against it, if it comes to a vote.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 17 of 108:
|
Jan 14 16:45 UTC 2004 |
aruba, I would be curious as to *how* you find the proposal too rigid, given
the 2 remaining exceptions.
|
aruba
|
|
response 18 of 108:
|
Jan 14 17:10 UTC 2004 |
I think I said so already. It would be an invitation to people to spam the
conferences - literally fill up the disk with trash because they know it
can't be deleted. Are you saying you don't know anyone who would do that?
|
carson
|
|
response 19 of 108:
|
Jan 14 17:16 UTC 2004 |
(resp:12 sums it up. resp:16 appears to respond to resp:14 and,
IMO, is a correct assessment of a failing of the proposal.)
[aruba slipped]
|
albaugh
|
|
response 20 of 108:
|
Jan 14 19:23 UTC 2004 |
Re: #18 - Sorry, I do remember you reading that. Well, that should be solved
simply enough - the "standing" policy for *every* conference is that the fw's
can & will kill entire items that are deliberately created for the purpose
of SPAMming the conference. Or, a "progressive" approach might be that the
fw's first *retire* such SPAM items, and after some period of time where it
becomes apparent that no one is contributing to them, then kill them.
|
carson
|
|
response 21 of 108:
|
Jan 14 20:14 UTC 2004 |
(that's usually been the policy. gull's proposal would eliminate that
option. to me, that's a reason to vote "no.")
|
albaugh
|
|
response 22 of 108:
|
Jan 14 20:19 UTC 2004 |
I disagree that gull's proposal eliminates that option. See his exception
re: conference policy.
|
aruba
|
|
response 23 of 108:
|
Jan 15 00:42 UTC 2004 |
Gull's policy would require that every single conference have the exception
you state poste somewhere - otherwise someone could fill up the conference
and the fairwitness would have no recourse.
|
gull
|
|
response 24 of 108:
|
Jan 15 01:49 UTC 2004 |
I don't think spamming conferences has been that big a problem. I've
only seen a handful of incidents of it in the entire time I've been
here, and in most of them nothing was done anyway. To the extent it is
a problem, retiring the offending items would solve it.
I don't really see any evidence that there are legions of spammers out
there just waiting to pounce when we revise our item-removal policy.
|
richard
|
|
response 25 of 108:
|
Jan 15 05:01 UTC 2004 |
I think what is REALLY an invitation to spamming is valerie's mass scribbling
program. That encourages people to trash conferences with hundreds of abusive
posts because they know that at any one time, they can delete all posts with
one click. When you could only scribble one post at a time, it was too time
consumming to take out everything you posted if you had hundreds of posts.
That program should be de-permitted because allowing mass scribbling encourage
people to think they can raise holy hell here and not be held accountable.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 26 of 108:
|
Jan 15 05:03 UTC 2004 |
Wrong. The worst offenders have been those who come in, make a single comment
every where they can find, and then disappear, never to be heard from again.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 27 of 108:
|
Jan 15 06:41 UTC 2004 |
Re#25 Not practical as long as scribble capability exists in picospan.
Ignoring the fact that this particular "scribble" has been openly
available and (presumably) copied by any number of people in recent days,
it's not at all hard to rewrite your own version from scratch.
Variations of the "scribble" program have surfaced many times on m-net,
arbornet, The Well, The River and grex over the years.
|
jp2
|
|
response 28 of 108:
|
Jan 15 11:22 UTC 2004 |
Really, discussion of disabling the mass-scribble command is a non-starter.
It cannot be done. So give up.
|
ryan
|
|
response 29 of 108:
|
Jan 15 13:44 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
carson
|
|
response 30 of 108:
|
Jan 15 14:04 UTC 2004 |
(resp:24 you're right; "retiring" an item is about as effective
as "killing" an item in that scenario. thanks for pointing that out.)
|
janc
|
|
response 31 of 108:
|
Jan 15 17:00 UTC 2004 |
You can only retire an entire item, not a single response to an item. So if
I post a "Loest Pricess for Viagra" response to every item in coop, the only
way to make them all vanish would be to scribble them. Even then users would
still see the item come up new.
When I did the pistachio interface, I have fairwitnesses the ability to
customize the look of their conferences (colors, login screens, etc).
Basically, none did, so I eventually added the ability of users to
do such customization. I think one of the problems with this policy is
that most conferences would announce no policy. Probalby the proposal
should include a default policy for conferences who post none.
|
gull
|
|
response 32 of 108:
|
Jan 15 17:11 UTC 2004 |
That's a good point. My first reaction is that the default policy
should be "no fairwitness deletions", but I'm willing to entertain other
suggestions. I think it can be fairly restrictive, since if a
fairwitness actually cares to use their deletion power it doesn't take
much effort to post a policy.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 33 of 108:
|
Jan 15 18:23 UTC 2004 |
Then my suggestion would be the default policy gives conf. fw's to retire and
even kill items created for the express purpose of SPAMming the conf. (thus
making it undesirable for grexing).
|
carson
|
|
response 34 of 108:
|
Jan 15 19:09 UTC 2004 |
(resp:31 FWs already can't scribble responses in PicoSpan, AFAIK. [I
seem to remember it being a feature in YAPP.] I think that this
proposal would be too broad if it tried to cover that non-aspect of
FWing as well.)
(I also gathered from the wording of the proposal that, if no policy
[ugh, I'm starting to *hate* that word] were posted in the conference,
FWs and staff wouldn't be able to delete items in the conference at
all. I don't understand why there would need to be a specific default
P-O-L-I-C-Y, unless it's to avoid a hypothetical revival of this
discussion in the future.)
|
willcome
|
|
response 35 of 108:
|
Jan 15 19:57 UTC 2004 |
Hey, I used the ability to customise the look of various conferences!!1
|
gull
|
|
response 36 of 108:
|
Jan 15 21:16 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:33: My proposal does not put any restrictions on staff retiring
items, only killing them.
|
gull
|
|
response 37 of 108:
|
Jan 15 21:17 UTC 2004 |
(Hmm...do I need to clarify that point? To me it seems obvious that
retiring an item is different than deleting it, but it may not be
obvious to everyone.)
|
flem
|
|
response 38 of 108:
|
Jan 15 21:31 UTC 2004 |
I'm personally not sure what happens when an item gets retired. Could
someone clarify?
|
gull
|
|
response 39 of 108:
|
Jan 15 21:33 UTC 2004 |
My understanding is that it still exists in the conference, but is never
treated as 'new'. I'm not sure if it still shows up in the item list or
not.
|