|
Grex > Coop9 > #27: Motion: To allow anonymous reading via Backtalk | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 624 responses total. |
babozita
|
|
response 162 of 624:
| 
Jan 2 21:21 UTC 1997 |
The question is clear: Would you rather have a proposal that satisfies some
of your desires and has an excellent chance of being passed, or would you
rather have a proposal that satisfies all of your desires and has a poor
chance of being passed? People who are unwilling to compromise generally lose
out altogether.
|
dang
|
|
response 163 of 624:
|
Jan 2 21:28 UTC 1997 |
I too can now understand the argument for not opening the cfs. However, I
still disagree. I use and support and donate my time to grex because it is
free and open. I support Grex becoming even more open. Completely. Paul:
Why should lack of willingness to compramize damn us? Because we feel as
strongly as you do about this issue, we are bad? You don't post "sensative"
material to agora, so you don't mind it being open. I post exactly what I
feel in every cf that I'm in. I care as much about what I post as you do.
I feel just as strongly that Grex should be open as you do that it shouldn't.
But I should compramize my feelings while you don't compramize yours? That
doesn't seem like a compramize to me. I'm sorry about the attacks, I don't
think people should use them, but someone on this side of the argument needs
to show the same emotion. (BTW, I'm young too.)
|
babozita
|
|
response 164 of 624:
|
Jan 2 21:36 UTC 1997 |
Dang, I HAVE compromised... I don't like having Intro andAgora open.
But I'm willing to go that far. And others are too.
I've said all I have to say and should say about this topic, and made a mess
of things. So I'll just leave it be now.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 165 of 624:
|
Jan 2 21:39 UTC 1997 |
Closing any confs changes GRex. It changes what Grex is. The
very nature of Grex requires that all confs be completely open. Deviating
from that in any way only opens the door to future "compromises"
Closing any confs from anonymous readers is as bad as closing themn
to those who are not membvres of that conf.
Grex would lose more users and members with this so called compromise
than itwould byt maintaining a consisten policy and keeping all the confs
open.
|
remmers
|
|
response 166 of 624:
|
Jan 2 23:28 UTC 1997 |
Speaking as a bureaucracy-loather, I sure hope that whatever
we do regarding web access to conferences, we preserve the
administrative simplicity that we always had "pre-web":
Basically, anybody who proposes a conference gets it, and once
the conference is created, it's open to all. No centralized
bureaucracy to evaluate proposals, no questions about who gets
access once it's created. I see suggestions of deciding web
accessibility on a conference-by-conference basis and shudder
at the administrative hassles and bureaucratic tedium that this
would entail. I'd really prefer to keep it simple and have the
same access methods available for all conferences.
My preference is still for allowing read-accessibility to all
conferences without having to take out an account, with posting
access requiring a grex login. As I and others have said before,
I think it would help attract more *participants* by making
it easier to have a look around before taking the plunge --
and I think people are exaggerating the dangers involved. If
that doesn't fly, guess I'll settle for what we have now.
There's a thread in some of the responses above that I find
disturbing: The notion that reading things on Grex should
somehow be traceable back to the reader. I see it in the
suggestion that "observer mode" should be eliminated entirely
or selectively, and in the notion that people reading Grex via
the web should be traceable "in case there's a problem."
Now, I happen to think that what I read is my own business.
When I go to browse in the library, I don't have to sign for
every book I browse. I also like the fact that when I go to a
concert or attend a poetry reading, nobody demands an identity
card or frisks me in case I have a tape recorder and plan to
steal stuff. I think that most people would find the thought
of those things happening to be repugnant. It's an invasion of
privacy and antithetical to living in a free society. Why is
it that we are slipping into a mode of thought where what we
would find repugnant in traditional settings is acceptable or
even desirable in the arena of electronic communication? Can
you say "Big Brother Is Watching You"?
|
valerie
|
|
response 167 of 624:
|
Jan 3 00:50 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 168 of 624:
|
Jan 3 01:06 UTC 1997 |
If Grex prides itself on being open and easily accessible, if that is one
of our stated objectives, then that is what we should be working at doing.
We shouldn't be willing to tweek that goal because it is uncomfortable
watching a few folks self-destruct. This issue should be decided based
on our stated goals and be consistent with other related policies.
Regarding letting individual fairwitnesses decide this issue... We
already have a number of fairwitnesses who think they "own their
conference". They have never owned conferences - they are housekeepers.
Everyone who reads and posts to a conference co-owns the conference. That
even includes folks who are reading without being listed in the
participation file. Sending FWs the message they can decide who can read
a conference would be sending the wrong message and potentiating this
misconception.
That I am aware of here I've not assailed brighn's character. I've
disagreed with his perceived need for a key to the conference doors. I've
spent probably too much time trying to find the logic in his arguments.
But I don't despise him or question his ethics. I'm still listening.
Sometimes with a smile on my face but I'm still listening. ;-)
Regarding brighn sending me hostile mail - it was inappropriate behavior
for an adult - so I simply and effectively cut it off. I'm sorry if his
words embarrassed him. But they were, after all, his words.
Are we having fun yet?
|
scott
|
|
response 169 of 624:
|
Jan 3 01:41 UTC 1997 |
Hee hee. :)
I like Mary's response.
|
robh
|
|
response 170 of 624:
|
Jan 3 01:43 UTC 1997 |
Oh sure, lying awake for a few hours a night, crying myself to
sleep, that's pure fun to me. How did I ever manage before this?
|
scott
|
|
response 171 of 624:
|
Jan 3 02:01 UTC 1997 |
<Sigh>
Item 34 is a nice example of how I can occasionally be goaded into shooting
my mouth off.
For the record, I am not prejudiced against non-members. I *am* rather angry
about the attitude of some non-members who would like to decide how Grex runs
without having to contribute anything of their own.
I could make some other points, but I'd prefer that we remain above the
"worst of M-net" level that some folks would like to see us sink to.
|
robh
|
|
response 172 of 624:
|
Jan 3 02:26 UTC 1997 |
(#170 was supposed to be a response to #168, scott slipped in
and PicoSpan didn't tell me.)
|
babozita
|
|
response 173 of 624:
|
Jan 3 02:28 UTC 1997 |
Um, contribute?
I've offered to verify users for Usenet in the past. That never happened, but
my offer was ignored.
I offered above to write an advertisement for Grex. That, too, was completely
ignored.
I have been a FW here.
I say nice things about Grex on other BBSs. Morgaene, for one, is here because
of me. So is Colene and a few others, though they're not active.
Contributing isn't just about giving money, Scott. I have given a LOT of good
press to Grex. I have volunteered. Maybe not as much as you, maybe not as much
as everyone else here, but don't you dare say for one minute that I have done
NOTHING and contributed NOTHING to Grex.
Mary> I sent a private mail. I f you don't want to receive mail, if receiving
and sending mail is somehow not adult, then put up mail filters. My words
did not embarass me. I thought they were off-topic, and since I didn't have
an on-topic post to put them as a rider to, I mailed them separately. It's
the way I do things. I don't consider it immature to avoid putting up
off-topic posts.
Everyone else> I've gotten way too tied up in this, and frankly I care less
about how this issue is resolved than I care about just staying the fuck out
of it. I indicated that the last post would be the end of it, but silly old
me couldn't keep his fingers out of the cookie jar. Ah well. I've grown to
become so disgusted with four particular users of Grex that if I read any more
of this conference I really *will* leave Grex. Since I don't wnat to leave
Grex, I will, finally, once and for all, shut up and leave this conference.
And for the children, I'll type it for you:
*scott cheers*
*scg says something as immature as brighn would say if brighn were saying it*
*john and mary continue to act nonplussed and emotionless*
(at the same time? ponderous =})
|
kerouac
|
|
response 174 of 624:
|
Jan 3 02:30 UTC 1997 |
The proposed compromise is unreasonable because it either places the
burden of deciding whicn confs are open on staff or on the fw's or
on the board. No one person owns a conference, in fact no group of
people do. A conf is the intellectual property of all who choose to
partake of it, reading or posting or fw'ing or whatever. Saying that
any one personor persons has the right to censor a conference is
stealing it from its rightful owners.
The proposed compromise would be the beginning of the end of grex. Once
one conf is closed or restricted for one reason, you have opened up the
floodgates. Grex only survives by being true to its principles and
never ever doing anything that changes the essence of what it is.
If only two conferences can be read anonymously, grex will never be
ableto say again that its conferencing system is free and open to
everyone to be read and used in the manner they please.
|
janc
|
|
response 175 of 624:
|
Jan 3 04:38 UTC 1997 |
An amazing amount of ridiculous stuff is being said in this item by people
on both sides.
The question is "how much access should we give to people before they
register?" We all understand that registration is quick, easy, and
doesn't make a person any less anonymous than they used to be.
Grex does not become a closed system if we require people to register first.
That's absurd. This issue does not make sense as an "open access" issue.
Users do not become anonymous just because they haven't registered. That's
absurd too. This issue does not make sense as an "anonymity" issue either.
If there is anything to discuss here it is about weighing "ease of access"
against "sense of closure".
The pro side is about making it easier to sample Grex from the web. People
will be able to look at the conferences much more easily. People will be
able to put links on pages anywhere in the internet that say things like
Click here to see a cool poem Brighn posted on Grex.
The con side is concerned about the blurring of boundaries that leads to.
Currently the is a clear mental difference to posting something to the
poetry conference and posting it to your web page. If links like the example
above proliferate, then of course people will feel that Grex is more of a web
page than a community. There is a justifiable concern that Grex will blur
into the World Wide Web instead of remaining a unique place. The
difference between the two depends on how people think about it, not on any
hard facts or logical arguments. And how people think about a place has
a lot to do with how they (and others) enter it.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 176 of 624:
|
Jan 3 05:02 UTC 1997 |
Surely anyone who uses Grex already understands that posting something on Grex
is posting on the Internet. Anything I, or anyone else posts here could be
used in the future by a stalker, the police, or political opponents, to
assemble quite a bit of information about me or them. If people are
uncomfortable revealing sensitive information, and worried about the privacy
of posting, then they should be very careful about what they reveal.
Whether or not someone accesses that sensitive information via dial-in,
telnet, or a web-browser is immaterial.
Grex may feel like a private place, but it is no more private than the public
library. In fact, electronic bbs are far less private. And getting steamed
up about "copyrights" and "anonymity" is baseless. Grex staff, fws, and
members have no control over who reads your postings and what readers do with
that information.
I am for the proposal to let anyone browse (but not post to) any conference
they want to, without clogging the system with a momentary login id. If they
are interested enough to want to post, then they can register. I was startled
when Rob linked an item in the PFC conference to Intro, but don't think anyone
should have to decide whether that is "OK" or not. Under the "compromise"
parts of nearly every conference are available for browsing in Agora or Intro,
but not all items. Who controls the linking? Currently no one, and I don't
think Grex needs a new committee to mediate the conflicts that will arise over
who "owns" an item and its responses.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 177 of 624:
|
Jan 3 06:03 UTC 1997 |
I have read the last few days worth of posts, and I am of the same opinion.
The only thing anonymous web reading does is enlarge the "gallery" where
anyone in the world can come and visit. This is like enlarging the seating
in the Town Hall where town meetings are held and anyone can speak about
anything, and anyone can listen. I have considered carefully the opposing
arguments, but they do not seem to me to have enough substance to change my
opinion. Does brushing a visitor with newuser sauce really make them somehow
different? I don't believe it does.
|
robh
|
|
response 178 of 624:
|
Jan 3 06:49 UTC 1997 |
And I do. I think we've really hit a nasty issue here, people
are coming into the "discussion" with completely different
worldviews, and things aren't meshing at all.
Re 176 - Obviously, I'd have to be more careful about linking
items to Intro if it were an open-access conference. I'd want
to at least get permission from the item's author, if not the
fair-witnesses. Yes, it's an extra level of bureaucracy, but
it's something I'm willing to do. You'd be surprised what I
wouldn't do to prevent myself from being forced off the system.
|
nephi
|
|
response 179 of 624:
|
Jan 3 07:11 UTC 1997 |
Gosh, Jan just gets smarter and smarter . . . 8^)
I think that this issue is one about a sense of community. The
tendency for people to share their thoughts with their community
is inversely proportional to the size of the community. People
are more likely to gab with a couple of friends than they are to
gab with a lecture hall full of people. And people who would
normally feel free to give a speech to a lecture hall are less
likely to want to give a speech that will be scrutinized by
millions of television viewers.
I wonder if Grex's conferences will become more like Usenet news
groups if we start to eliminate our sense of "place" . . .
|
janc
|
|
response 180 of 624:
|
Jan 3 07:40 UTC 1997 |
Re #176: You are, of course, correct that anyone on the internet can read
anything posted here. On a purely logical level, yes, posting here is
nearly the same thing as posting the the internet. But it *feels* different.
And the difference in feeling is not a bug. We have somewhat paradoxical
goals here. We want to be a "community". That means that we want to feel
as if we are among friends and people with whom we have mutual interests.
At the same time, we want to be "open" so that anyone on the planet can
easily join. The idea of an "open community" is not very logical. Luckily,
we don't have very logical minds, so where logic fails we can use smoke and
mirrors. An awful lot of what we do here is based on illusion.
The fact that we have a doorway, a process people have to go through to
join (newuser) or to enter the system (logging in) gives a largely false
feeling of boundaries and closure to the system. The illusion of closure.
I know many of you feel that the only thing to do with an illusion is to
dispell it. I don't agree. This particular illusion is all that makes an
"open community" a possibility instead of an oxymoron. Illusions can have
much more power than logic.
I'm not really sure that allowing anonymous reading via backtalk would be
enough to break the illusion of community. It seems some of our users do
think it would for them. To some degree, I think I'm arguing this side of
the issue because it is more interesting than the other one, harder to
understand and harder to explain.
|
mdw
|
|
response 181 of 624:
|
Jan 3 07:50 UTC 1997 |
Woof. >2000 lines here. I know I saw interesting stuff scroll by in
responses #1-77, but I don't think there's much point for me to go back
& look.
I am definitely a bit unhappy with the idea people would use the
argument of "threatening to leave" if they don't get their way. That
may honestly be their feeling, and it obviously indicates they feel
pretty deeply about it, but I don't think the threat itself is a valid
argument. I do think the last sentence of #178 is in very poor taste.
I hope its author will either clarify it or withdraw it. It sounds like
a threat against the very concept of a member-run system, which is
definitely most inappropriate.
Nevertheless, I can't say that I'm particularly in favor of anonymous
web reading of conferences. I was also not in favour of "anonymous
guest access", as I'm sure people will remember. I think Jan in #118
does a very good job of introducing some of the problems I think this
would introduce. I'll see if I can't find a different way to explore
the same problems.
Let's see, Rane in #177 asks if "brushing a visitor with newuser sauce
really makes them somehow different?". I think the answer is actually
"yes!" It's all a perception problem, which may explain why some people
are having trouble seeing this. So here's a different way to look at
it. Suppose you were throwing a party, for a bunch of people you didn't
know at all well, and a few of your friends. Suppose, at the door, you
handed paper sacks to *all* of the strangers, and instructed them to
wear those over their heads, and told them not to say anything, but to
feel free to go hang out and listen in on any conversation they pleased.
A few of your friends *might* not mind having a faceless audience to
perform in front of. *Most* of your friends will feel varying degrees
of uncomfortableness as random faceless blobs barge in on their
conversations. The faceless blobs will also probably act rather
differently. Most of them are likely to feel at least somewhat excluded
*even if* you told them ahead of time that they could go into a bathroom
and take off the bag if they wanted to participate. However much it
migh seem like you've made it "easier" to participate, you've now
created a bi-modal system, with two interfaces that people have to
navigate instead of just one. The result is that you will get a larger
permament population of "lurkers", and very few people willing to suffer
the 2nd hurdle of entering the bathroom and unmasking. Naturally,
nobody but college psychology students would *ever* give a real life
party like this. In fact, what *most* people do when they give a party
for a bunch of strangers, is to hand out name tags. This is the real
life equivalent to Rane's "newuser sauce".
Of course, computer conferencing is different than real life.
Unfortunately, it's all in the wrong direction, so far as the "bag"
problem goes. Without the "real life" cues, many people find it far
harder to feel confortable participating in a conference, and without
obvious signs of their presence, it's harder for other people to give
them even overt personal ascii cues that their participation would be
welcome. This is one of the reasons you get more lurkers in computer
conferencing than you would get in a ftf party. If we want to promote a
computer conferencing *community*, then I'm afraid to say that
"anonymous web browsing" of conferences is just completely the wrong way
to go.
|
robh
|
|
response 182 of 624:
|
Jan 3 08:19 UTC 1997 |
The author of #178 isn't about to retract the statement, but is
quite willing to clarify. (I hope you weren't reading anything
sexual into it - believe it or not, that didn't occur to me
until I reread it.) I'd like to think that we can arrive at
some solution that will satisfy both sides of the debate,
rather than leaving one side ecstatic and the other one pissed
off. Even if I do end up on the ecstatic side. To that end,
I'm more than willing to put extra effort into the Intro
conference to make it open to Web users without violating the
other conferences. I know some users are appaled at the
thought of adding a layer of bureaucracy to our system. Well,
maybe they now know how I feel about this entire matter.
(And yes, I admit it, I should have lied. I should have just
said, "Why no, I wouldn't leave Grex if this were passed! What
a silly question!" Silly me, I've actually been trying to be more
honest with myself and others lately. Guess I won't make that
mistake again. Now people are attacking my "threat" rather than
addressing my arguments.)
|
scg
|
|
response 183 of 624:
|
Jan 3 08:37 UTC 1997 |
Hmm... Marcus has a good point there. I'll have to think about it.
|
valerie
|
|
response 184 of 624:
|
Jan 3 08:55 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
dpc
|
|
response 185 of 624:
|
Jan 3 15:44 UTC 1997 |
Aha! But, Valerie, regardless of the number of bag-headed people who
are lurking in conferences now, nobody *knows* that they are there!
If, OTOH, we open conferences to Web readers without newuser sauce,
then, by that act of a policy change, people suddenly *know* that
bag-headed people who haven't been there before are there.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 186 of 624:
|
Jan 3 15:45 UTC 1997 |
The proposed compromise where Agora and Intro are the only confs that
anonymous users can read is censorship. Everything I post into other
confs is censored because they cant read those confs. This is not
tolerable. Therefore the compromise cannot be accepted.
So under those circumstances, I would feel obliged to enter new items
in Agora and copy over as many of the current items from the other confs
that I read as possible. And I will encourage others to do the same.
Let grex be a one or two conf system if that is the only way that all confs
can be available to read by anyone, regardless if they want to give their
name or not. I think when you join Grex and start to post, you should
accept that this is not a closed community and anything posted is in the
public domain.
The compromise is not acceptable and I'm not bluffing.
|