|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 299 responses total. |
gelinas
|
|
response 175 of 299:
| 
Apr 4 16:11 UTC 2005 |
You really don't read so good, do you, tod? *EVERY* suggestion I've seen is
for any "system-wide" filter to be user-choosable: If you don't want to use
it, then don't.
|
tod
|
|
response 176 of 299:
|
Apr 4 17:12 UTC 2005 |
re #175
You really don't read so good, do you, tod? *EVERY* suggestion I've seen
So you think re #141 is about the user having a choice on posting/reading?
Why don't you take that tape out of your sock drawer and restore the parenting
conference like a good staff volunteer instead of obfuscating the topic?
"The wide range of users attracted by our open access policy ensures a wide
range of knowledge and opinion. On-line forums are very effective in drawing
people with diverse backgrounds into shared discussions." http://www.grex.o
rg/local/grex/501c3.html
Lose the blue ribbon, hypocrites. You're not practicing open discussion from
diverse backgrounds with your blatant censorships.
|
scholar
|
|
response 177 of 299:
|
Apr 4 17:35 UTC 2005 |
Re. 171: If there's a system-wide filter, I can practically guarantee there
will be more of a problem.
Think about it: right now, the few people who want to filter do. For the
most part, the twits don't seem to care about this and keep the same names.
Thus, the people who filter don't have much of a problem and neither do the
twits and everyone's happy.
However, when you disrupt this balance by makiing filtering the DEFAULT, and
thus making it impossible for twits to be heard, you're going to GREATLY
increase the incentive to CHANGE NAMES MORE FREQUENTLY> Thus, you're basically
going to end up with an entire BBS filled with a group of people complaining
about how they don't want to be able to read another group of people yet can.
Seriously.
I can't imagine it not happening.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 178 of 299:
|
Apr 4 18:00 UTC 2005 |
If it were possible, I would suggest that during startup of any piece of grex
software where twit filtering were engaged, that a kind of "warning" message
were displayed to that effect. The purpose would be to remind people that
they were not being shown all responses, which might at certain times lead
them to adjust their filter.
|
keesan
|
|
response 179 of 299:
|
Apr 4 18:31 UTC 2005 |
Maybe backtalk could have a button to turn the twit filter on and off?
|
mary
|
|
response 180 of 299:
|
Apr 4 18:44 UTC 2005 |
Re: 173 It's a start. I too predict it won't be the end of the
problem, but it's a start and we go from there. In the end, we'll
probably have to throttle back our open newuser some. But maybe I'm
wrong. Hope so, at least.
|
richard
|
|
response 181 of 299:
|
Apr 4 20:24 UTC 2005 |
I think "censorship" would be preventing somebody from being able to post
because of what they posted. If someone posts an item purely to say the word
"faggot" over and over, I see nothing wrong with removing that item, so long
as that person is not prevented from posting it. He can post that item a
hundred times and fw's can remove it a hundred times. Asking users to use
a little courtesy when they post is not the same thing as preventing them from
posting whatever they think. There IS such a thing as acceptable moderation,
or censorship if you want to call it that, and by "acceptable" it only means
requiring/requesting that you say what you want to say using proper words.
I don't think it makes grex look good at all when new users come here and read
agora and see it full of derogatory hateful slang. Agora needs to be READABLE
for people to want to keep coming back and reading it. Right now it is not
that readable and no filter is going to fix that
|
tod
|
|
response 182 of 299:
|
Apr 4 20:26 UTC 2005 |
If I'm FW, I can deem anything derogatory by my own interpretations.
That is called censorship, chief.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 183 of 299:
|
Apr 4 21:09 UTC 2005 |
Richard obviously has no clue what "censorship" means as that term is commonly
used in America. On his planet, the KKK can print thousands of newspapers and
the government can scoop them up and burn them immediately thereafter.
|
tod
|
|
response 184 of 299:
|
Apr 4 21:18 UTC 2005 |
re #181
I think "censorship" would be preventing somebody from being able to post
because of what they posted.
Censorship: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered
objectionable
|
richard
|
|
response 185 of 299:
|
Apr 4 21:36 UTC 2005 |
cyklone, you are still not understanding what Grex is. Grex is NOT a city
sidewalk. Grex is a PRIVATE organization. do you know what the word PRIVATE
means? It means that the public does not own grex. If the public owned grex,
THEN such censorship would be wrong. But inasmuch as grex-- cyberspace
communications inc.-- is a PRIVATE organization that offers something for the
public to use, it has the right to place rules on how the public uses it.
You might consider defacating on a public bus "freedom of expression" but that
doesn't mean that it is censorship if you are not allowed to take a public
crap! There are acceptable rules in this society for use of public
facilities, let alone public facilities run by private companies.
tod, okay it is censorship in the loosest sense, but I think it is acceptable
so long as you are only prohibiting the use of certain words, and not the
expression of any ideas
|
richard
|
|
response 186 of 299:
|
Apr 4 21:40 UTC 2005 |
The New York Times is a private company that puts out a newspaper for the
public and prints letters to the editor. If you send a letter to the editor
to the Times with the word "faggot" or "fuck" in it, they might print that
letter, but they will edit those words out. Because the majority of their
customers do not want to see those words in print. Likewise the vast majority
of grexers do not want to see words like "faggot" or "nigger" or "kike" or
whatever. It makes grex a much less pleasant reading experience. It is in
the interest of Grx for the conferences to be as pleasant a reading experience
as possible because Grex wants people to come back again and again. As a
private organization, just like the Times, Grex thus has the right to
acceptable moderation of what it publishes
|
cyklone
|
|
response 187 of 299:
|
Apr 4 21:47 UTC 2005 |
Richard, you obviously have a problem with terminology. Yes, as a LEGAL
matter GOVERNMENT censorship is illegal and PRIVATE censorship is
permitted. This has been generally accepted knowledge on grex for quite
some time. However, censorship is still censorship, and it is hypocritical
to claim to oppose government censorship while supporting private
censorship.
You also have a problem with analogies. Grex is NOT the equivalent of the New
York Times. The NYT is clearly set up to publish only those views, stories
and letters approved or authorized by its owners. Grex has not previously
adopted that business model. Of course, you and some others seem hellbent on
heading in that direction. However, that is NOT what grex was originally
founded to be.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 188 of 299:
|
Apr 4 21:50 UTC 2005 |
One of the key things you're missing in that analogy is that the New York
Times warns you before you write to them that they reserve the right to edit
your letter to the editor for content or clarity.
I don't recall any such warning appearing in newuser.
Further, people writing a letter to the editor don't necessarily know that
it will be published in whole, or in part. On BBS's, there is an expectation
that what you post will be seen by all.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 189 of 299:
|
Apr 4 21:53 UTC 2005 |
Good points.
|
tod
|
|
response 190 of 299:
|
Apr 4 21:53 UTC 2005 |
re #185
Grex is a PRIVATE organization.
You're saying that Cyberspace is subject to excise taxes under Chapter 42?
You mean like a 509 instead of a 501? Please elaborate. This is intriguing.
|
richard
|
|
response 191 of 299:
|
Apr 4 22:03 UTC 2005 |
re #188 good point, I would say that prior to grex instituting such a
policy, it should make it clear in newuser that:
"grex is owned by cyberspace communications inc., a private company run
by the users of grex, and the board of cyberspace communications
reserves the right to make a few basic rules as to the content of posts
and enforce those rules. Such rules would be limited to excessive
flaming and excessive use of derogatory language"
|
richard
|
|
response 192 of 299:
|
Apr 4 22:24 UTC 2005 |
cyklone said:
" censorship is still censorship, and it is hypocritical
to claim to oppose government censorship while supporting private
censorship. "
No it is not, because public censorship and private censorship are two
different thigns. You can in fact be against public censorship, and at
the same time say that if someone is in your house, they can refrain from
saying certain things or leave. Because your house is YOUR domain and you
make the rules there. Cyberspace Communications provides Grex, for any
user to use, but it is their house and they can make rules here if they
want.
It is not, absolutely not, hypocritical to be against public censorship
and at the same time accept private establishments making private rules.
Grex will never prohibit you from expressing an idea, so it does not
censor, not in the broadest sense. If Grex says, "please use different
words to express those sentiments" that is more moderation than
censorship.
|
jep
|
|
response 193 of 299:
|
Apr 5 00:05 UTC 2005 |
I've skipped past a great deal of what was said in this item. I
presume there are 4 or 5 points, repeated 20 tuimes each, and so I
probably picked up those.
I'll say this, I don't recommend Grex to people any more. I don't have
many friends who would be interested in wading through it in order to
try to carry on a conversation. Occasionally, interesting discussion
still occurs here, but it's not the norm. I've been around long enough
to find it worthwhile to try to ferret it out. I don't expect many
others to want to do that.
I'll probably remain here as long as several others do so. And those
several others will probably do the same, until Grex degenerates to the
stage the old Arbornet system was at. (It had 5 total users when it
merged with M-Net.)
Honestly, I think it's too late for Grex, just as it's too late for M-
Net. What it is, is what it's going to remain. When there were 100
members, and 1000 users, it could have tried to find a path of being a
reasonable system for reasonable people, but the users aren't there any
more. They're not coming back. They left for a reason. Their skins
were too thin, their stomachs too weak, or their taste too refined for
what Grex has become. Many came here because they went through the
same process on M-Net.
I'd like to think Grex could recover some day, but I'd like to think M-
Net could, too. I just don't see it happening.
|
richard
|
|
response 194 of 299:
|
Apr 5 00:13 UTC 2005 |
grex is dying because the conferences are being neglected. suggest taking
care of the conferences, cleaning up some, shutting down others, moderating
others, and you get accused of violating grex's high moral standards. Grex
can't be "holier than thou" and survive. Grex needs to make itself a place
that would be attractive to a wide variety of new users. Right now there are
new users who join party and chat, but they go to the conferences and see a
bunch of crap and say why bother, and then they will only ever chat here and
not conference.
grex isn't working. It is drowning in a sea of crap posts, just like mnet
did. mnet is a shell of its former self now, most of its confs are devoid
of intelligent exchange. mnet seems to exist now solely for the purpose of
a half a dozen or so users to roll in the mud with each other. Grex doesn't
need to let itself go in that direction but it is, because all these purists
come here and say grex can't change without being hypocritical. That Grex
has staked out such a high moral ground that it can't be anything different.
I disagree with that. Grex can change, and that change can't be more filters
and more programs to block user access. The change has to be more directly
taking care of grex's conferences.
either that or shut down the conferences and go to a complete blogosphere
where grex hosts nothing but blogs, where the person whose blog it is woudl
do all the moderating
|
naftee
|
|
response 195 of 299:
|
Apr 5 00:21 UTC 2005 |
re 191
Dude.
So you're saying that GreX currently does NOT have a policy which makes it
equivalent to the New York Times.
This directly contradicts what you insinuate in resp:186.
|
keesan
|
|
response 196 of 299:
|
Apr 5 00:27 UTC 2005 |
I am no longer seeing any crap in agora. My twit filter works fine and I have
not even had to add any names to it for a couple of days. .cfonce - feel free
to copy the last paragraph. I do occasionally have to hit the Enter key
(using picospan) to get past items where nobody but a twit posted and it would
be nice to eliminate that but I can live with it.
|
naftee
|
|
response 197 of 299:
|
Apr 5 00:49 UTC 2005 |
where's the last paragraph ?!
|
aruba
|
|
response 198 of 299:
|
Apr 5 14:03 UTC 2005 |
I liked other's post in #140. It *does* sound Orwellian to say that some
limits on free speech are required to preserve free speech, but it also
seems true.
I wonder - if we combined a system twit filter with IP-blocking within
newuser, if that wouldn't make a big difference. There can't be an infinite
number of sites which allow anonymous telnetting. After a few rounds of
accounts being created, put on the twit filter and their IP addresses put in
the newuser filter, wouldn't the twits start to run out of places to create
accounts from? Someone who's worked on the IP blocks in the past can
perhaps enlightn me.
I suggest creation of a position, whose sole job is to maintain the system
twit filter. (Maybe it should be a panel of 3 people, so there are some
checks and balances - but it can't be too many people, because they have to
move fast.) I wouldn't want any one person to hold the job for too long; it
should rotate around.
|
jep
|
|
response 199 of 299:
|
Apr 5 15:27 UTC 2005 |
I don't think it's Orwellian at all to limit behavior to allow freedom
for everyone. All of society does that. It's not "freedom" to allow
cell phones and loud talking in the movie theater. It ruins the
experience for everyone. On Grex, we allow a few twits to run rampant
and ruin the items and conferences for everyone.
I agree with Sindi; twit filters greatly help me to use the
conferences. New users don't know how to use them, though. They're
not going to be impressed by the unfiltered Grex as it is now.
I'm for a more usable, user-friendly Grex, even at the cost of free-
form, lowest common denominator, no rules "freedom". I don't think
it's freedom at all to let garbage overrun all else.
|