|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 299 responses total. |
cross
|
|
response 150 of 299:
| 
Apr 3 03:12 UTC 2005 |
Richard would make any homophobic or xenophobic remarks automatic grounds for
removal from BBS. While those comments are distasteful at best, this *is*
censorship. If we adopt such policies, we no longer support free speech.
As it is, we've already crossed the line too far.
|
spooked
|
|
response 151 of 299:
|
Apr 3 03:47 UTC 2005 |
Having fairwitnesses moderate content, as a solution to Grex's declining
agora state is not only ethically concerning, but in reality is impractical.
It is a no-goer - simple! (FWIW, I have not read agora in years - thought
it was bad enough back then...)
The flexible solution, which can solve the problem for both existing users
AND new users is one I described in this item somewhere back there - 2 sets
of filters:
1) User-defined conf/party/write filters: Complete flexibility on who to
ignore, if anyone, is at the discretion of each individual user.
2) Staff-defined conf/party/write filters: Staff may maintain a global list
of troublesome identities, and only if a user wants to block communication
with these people shall they employ this list. NEW USERS can have the option
to enable this by default, thus largely filtering most of the junk from their
eyes from day one.
Both can be employed if a user chooses, AND if a user wants to "hear" from
someone potentially blocked in set 2 by staff (but still keep the others
filtered) then that should be possible, also - for example, like the
.yeswrite (if I recall correctly) functionality with the orville write
program.
Finally, the filters should be able to be turned on/off/modified at anytime
at each individual user's discretion.
This solution is both flexible to each individual user, and is technically
not that brain-intensive to implement (will require a few changes to the
bbs/party/write). In the case of bbs the changes will only be possible in
fronttalk because we do not have code to picospan - though, I guess we could
implement some paging front-end filter capabilities (in fact, some users
already have coded their own, I think).
|
mary
|
|
response 152 of 299:
|
Apr 3 03:48 UTC 2005 |
I'm hoping for something a little more interesting than survival.
|
spooked
|
|
response 153 of 299:
|
Apr 3 03:51 UTC 2005 |
Mary slipped in
|
naftee
|
|
response 154 of 299:
|
Apr 3 04:02 UTC 2005 |
agora' still pretty bad :(
|
naftee
|
|
response 155 of 299:
|
Apr 3 04:03 UTC 2005 |
ouch i just poked my middle finger with a very sharp pencil
|
cyklone
|
|
response 156 of 299:
|
Apr 3 04:16 UTC 2005 |
Mary, if want grex to more than survive, then the userbase needs to come to
an agreement what it means to both "survive" and do "more than survive."
Frankly, I'm not even sure such a consesus exists at this time as to what
those terms mean here. And until there is a better understanding of those
terms, many of the proposed actions are premature. Undertand also that the
options some seem to favor (perhaps even you, based on what I've read) are
antithetical to free speech, and the ribbon should therefore be removed.
You can try to create your own G-rated Algonquin roundtable, and limit the
seats and topics of conversation, for all I care. Just don't pretend it's
anything more. It's the lady or the tiger, your pick.
|
naftee
|
|
response 157 of 299:
|
Apr 3 06:45 UTC 2005 |
G-UNIT
|
remmers
|
|
response 158 of 299:
|
Apr 3 15:50 UTC 2005 |
Re resp:129 on the EFF Ribbon: Indeed. The EFF wants everyone to
display the ribbon, and it *is* their ribbon after all.
Hmm... a lot of responses since my #102 or whatever number it was. All
of which ignore the fact that I, hypocrite though I may be, pointed out
that as a result of the item deletions of last year, the Grex
membership, hypocrites or otherwise, *did* adopt a policy restricting
item deletion.
http://www.grex.org/grexdoc/archives/votes/vote17
|
cyklone
|
|
response 159 of 299:
|
Apr 3 16:05 UTC 2005 |
I'm glad about that, though it does nothing to restore the words that were
stolen from me and the public. So in a narrow sense, I consider those who
voted for the no-deletion proposal yet also voted not to restore the
vandalized items to be hypocrites doing personal favors for favored
persons. Putting that aside, though, my accusations of hypocrisy
are now directed at those who wish to implement policies that (a) restrict
anonymous speech and/or (b) seek to control the content of posts beyond the
generally accepted "no credit card numbers" type of standard.
|
russ
|
|
response 160 of 299:
|
Apr 3 19:11 UTC 2005 |
Man, more than 150 responses accumulated in just a few days.
If we wanted to make the twits invisible to the average new user,
we could do it. It requires no changes to Picospan, because the
file and response formats are known and easily manipulated. This
is all we would have to do:
1.) Add a question to newuser, suggesting the use of a filter
and allowing them to opt out.
2.) Add simple utility commands to turn filters on and off, and
manage the user's personal twit list (including exceptions
to the global twit list).
3.) When the filter is active, add it to the pager chain to
remove responses by users on the global and personal twit list.
4.) When BBS is run and the filter is active, auto-forget new items
entered by twits in selected conferences (especially agora).
There are already several filters suitable for #3, #2 should be
rather simple, #1 can't be overly difficult either, and #4 would
take a few hours of script-hacking for a novice like me (for Picospan).
And let nobody claim that any such thing is "censorship". Slashdot
is one of the most free-wheeling fora in the world, yet anyone who
wants to post anonymously (as opposed to pseudonymously) is invisible
to the majority of the user base by the default settings. Anyone who
likes to troll, flame or post off-topic will rapidly find their
account's default score down in "invisible by default" territory,
the equivalent of a system-wide twit list. You can wade through the
dreck if you want to, but the defaults recognize that most do not.
Grex is big enough to need filters and more intelligence in the defaults.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 161 of 299:
|
Apr 3 20:18 UTC 2005 |
I don't think anyone has suggested that a good voluntary filter system is
censorship.
|
russ
|
|
response 162 of 299:
|
Apr 3 22:12 UTC 2005 |
A global twit list would have to be maintained by the system, and
wouldn't be as "voluntary" as it might; most users are going to use
it as-is. But as long as you can modify or discard it, it's not
censorship.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 163 of 299:
|
Apr 3 23:11 UTC 2005 |
Exactly.
<BTW, good response to Natey H. in agora today, Russ>
|
dpc
|
|
response 164 of 299:
|
Apr 3 23:33 UTC 2005 |
I'm leaning in favor of a system-wide staff-maintained twit
filter, plus a more user-friendly individually customizable
twit filter.
|
naftee
|
|
response 165 of 299:
|
Apr 4 00:52 UTC 2005 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 166 of 299:
|
Apr 4 00:54 UTC 2005 |
slashdot is lame, and I can't imagine why us GreXers should care how it
operates.
|
keesan
|
|
response 167 of 299:
|
Apr 4 02:28 UTC 2005 |
Is there any question about what should be on the system-wide filter?
|
spooked
|
|
response 168 of 299:
|
Apr 4 03:55 UTC 2005 |
That would be at staff's discretion... however, like I pointed out earlier:
- Each individual user would have the choice to apply or not utilise staff's
system-wide filter;
- And, if they apply the staff system-wide filter, a user should still be
able to override communication with a certain user on that list...
e.g. staff system-wide filter has users a, f, o, y, z to be filtered
I want to apply the staff system-wide filter, but I still want communication
with user y - thus, from that a, f, o, z would be filtered out for me
Moreover, if I do not want the staff system-wide filter at all, either from
day one or at a later time, I can disenable it easily for me.
Furthermore, I may choose to maintain my own filter as well - thus, say I had
personally filtered users a, b, m, y, z the union of the two sets would
be a, b, f, m, o, y, z and I would hear nothing in terms of
communications from them.
Is that understandable? This is technically not a huge task.
|
naftee
|
|
response 169 of 299:
|
Apr 4 04:11 UTC 2005 |
Decision of who is a twit should be made by vote.
|
tod
|
|
response 170 of 299:
|
Apr 4 05:30 UTC 2005 |
re #133
Don't be gay
|
mary
|
|
response 171 of 299:
|
Apr 4 10:49 UTC 2005 |
Nope, asking users to vote on who is filtered would take way too
much time. I'm not even sure staff has the time to maintain such a
feature and stay ahead of newuser.
But it would be a good place to start. I'd support a system-wide,
default on, staff maintained twit filter.
I will predict there will be a bit of a backlash with twits using
newuser to protest such a thing. It's not going to give us
immediate relief. But it's a start.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 172 of 299:
|
Apr 4 11:48 UTC 2005 |
Actually, I think the filter should be available as an opt-in system, at least
for existing users. Place a message in newuser explaining that grex comes in
two flavors: obnoxious, offensive and sometimes even off-topic, and also a
filtered, peaceful, less disruptive version. Explain how to toggle on the
filter. Then let the newuser wade in and make up their own mind.
|
cross
|
|
response 173 of 299:
|
Apr 4 12:35 UTC 2005 |
I really don't understand why people think that filters are going to work.
Looking at the history of the people currently in my mental list of twits
(I don't use a filter otherwise), these are people who have no problem
creating many accounts very quickly if they feel they're not being heard.
As soon as they discover that they're on the system twit filter, they'll
just create a new account to get around it. We'd do just as well locking
and/or deleting their accounts. While such an action would have different
consequences with respect to what those users were capable of, as far as
the issue of polution in BBS goes, it's not going to do any good.
It seems to me that the only solution is to place any new users on some
sort of provisional twit-like status until they've shown themselves not
to be twits. At that point, you might as well restrict newuser.
|
tod
|
|
response 174 of 299:
|
Apr 4 15:59 UTC 2005 |
I don't want any other soul on this system to "cleanse" my reading process
by censorship. I prefer censorship be a process left to my own choices.
Richard obviously feels strongly about homophobic slang and I can respect his
decision to block such things from his terminal but it doesn't mean he should
be allowed a system-wide ban on the more abrasive postings. If staff or the
membership feel compelled to start implement systemwide censorship at their
own discretion and it impedes my viewing or responding to postings then we're
going to get into some real 501c3 games in the near future.
|