|
Grex > Coop11 > #173: Motion to make scribble permanently erase response text | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 255 responses total. |
janc
|
|
response 231 of 255:
| 
Jun 28 04:08 UTC 2000 |
I'm interested in hearing what those who voted down this motion would
like to see instead - status quo? some other policy?
|
other
|
|
response 232 of 255:
|
Jun 28 06:43 UTC 2000 |
Grex does not have the source to picospan. If the current Grex machine
were to die, we would likely replace it with a near duplicate, since it
is likely that what would be involved in the machine dying would not be
so systemic as to destroy all the parts, and we have much duplication.
Any source changes to picospan would have to be such that marcus would be
convinced that they were worth his time and the involved violation of the
terms of the license he holds to the software.
|
remmers
|
|
response 233 of 255:
|
Jun 28 13:34 UTC 2000 |
I voted against the motion, but that's probably no surprise to
anyone. If we're going to keep scribble, I'd like to see better
advertising as to what it actually does. I'm not sure if that
would require modification to Picospan, but I heard Marcus
state at a board meeting that a better warning would be a
reasonable thing to do, so if it does require modification to
Picospan I don't expect that would be a barrier.
Coupled with any warning about scribble, I would like to see
a clear statement that each user -- not Grex, but the user --
is responsible for his or her own words.
|
flem
|
|
response 234 of 255:
|
Jun 28 13:37 UTC 2000 |
re resp:220 - Thanks, I'll take that as a compliment. :)
re resp:231 - Personally, I'm in the camp of those who'd like to see
scribble/erase disappear completely. In my opinion, the most accurate "real
world" analogy to this situation that I can think of is a newspaper with back
issues in the library. You may "own" writings of yours that you've allowed
to be published in the newspaper, but you can't un-write them. You can't get
back issues of newspapers removed from libraries because you no longer think
what you wrote, the best you can do is publish a retraction. Now, here's the
key point: This seems like a good system to me.
But I still don't think it's a very important issue.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 235 of 255:
|
Jun 28 13:49 UTC 2000 |
Another inane analogy to an non-analogous form of communication. How
compelling.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 236 of 255:
|
Jun 28 13:51 UTC 2000 |
(Coupled with another complete misunderstanding of the legal definition of
"publication," I should add.)
|
aruba
|
|
response 237 of 255:
|
Jun 28 14:29 UTC 2000 |
I think Greg's analogy is pretty good, though Grex is kind of a hybrid
between a newspaper form of publication and a conversation. I've learned
from this discussion that some people think of it as more newspaper-like
and some think of it as more conversation-like.
Personally, I'm fine with the way things are now, though it concerns me that
other people are concerned. I was kind of hoping we had reached an
acceptable compromise.
The last time we had a very divisive vote like this (over making the
conferences available via the web), we lost a few members, but then it all
blew over. I hope that will happen again.
(Actually, there was one other strange vote in there, last summer's motion
about overturning the board's policy if we should lose the ACLU suit.
That was really just miscommunication, I think, though tempers certainly
did flare. That blew over too.)
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 238 of 255:
|
Jun 28 14:47 UTC 2000 |
Greg's analogy is dumb. Grex is a BBS. BBSes have been around for almost
20 years now, so we should have enough idea how they work to just talk about
them, instead of trying to come up with strained analogies to other kinds of
speech. One of the things that is eminently practical on a BBS, even though
it's impossible in a football stadium, living room conversation, newspaper,
radio broadcast, Mayan stela, etc., etc. is allowing people to take their
words out of publication. In fact, it's very easy to do. So easy that most
users thought it was actually happening here for many years.
Grex doesn't have the limitation of hardcopy like a newspaper, and it
continues to publish your words years after you said them, unlike a
conversation where the words are spoken and then are not present for the
next person who walks into the room, let alone someone who walks in ten
years later. Stop trying to bind it to old paradigms of communication.
|
jp2
|
|
response 239 of 255:
|
Jun 28 16:19 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 240 of 255:
|
Jun 28 16:40 UTC 2000 |
Um, if you're that worried about not being able to "contla your own text",
you might think about limiting the amount you put here.
|
scott
|
|
response 241 of 255:
|
Jun 28 16:41 UTC 2000 |
Substitute "control" for "contla". I need to stop typing ahead of the netlag.
|
flem
|
|
response 242 of 255:
|
Jun 28 16:47 UTC 2000 |
Oh, sorry, I forgot. I'm an idiot. I'll change my mind right away...
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 243 of 255:
|
Jun 28 17:18 UTC 2000 |
Re #240-1: In other words, if I don't like your policy, I should leave.
Don't worry, I will. As soon as M-Net's back up.
|
scott
|
|
response 244 of 255:
|
Jun 28 19:36 UTC 2000 |
No, I'm not saying you should leave. I'd be happy if you cut your message
down to a few bullet points, that's all. ;)
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 245 of 255:
|
Jun 28 19:54 UTC 2000 |
I'm hardly the most verbose person on Grex.
|
mwg
|
|
response 246 of 255:
|
Jun 29 00:55 UTC 2000 |
I am of the opinion that the closest thing to an ethical position in this
question won. A forum like this should only remove text for two major
reasons, the avoidance of destructive litigation, and technical issues
like responses containing terminal control codes, raw HTML, or similar
destructive goop. The former would obviously have to vanish completely,
the latter could be stored elsewhere so as not to leap on the
unsuspecting.
I find the mere existance of the censor and scribble commands ethically
dubious, but as they don't actually erase anything, I see it as not worth
arguing over.
Warning people that they have to live with what they say is simply
reminding them of one of the fundamental principles by which life
operates.
As some people here can tell you, I have posted some incredibly stupid
things in my day, barring drive failures, it is all still here somewhere.
No doubt the hot coffee crowd will class this response and my position on
this matter as stupid, so be it.
While I would not leave Grex if such a vote were to go the other way, I
would take such a vote as a sign that the system was taking a destructive
heading in the long term.
I could go on, but I suspect that it would be pointless to do so.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 247 of 255:
|
Jun 29 01:01 UTC 2000 |
Sure would. For starters, nobody's suggesting that the "forum" should remove
anything -- just that the people who posted the text should be allowed to do
so if they choose. But if I explain everything else that's wrong with your
position (again), Scott will get pissed at me because it would take a while.
|
carson
|
|
response 248 of 255:
|
Jun 29 04:06 UTC 2000 |
(Scott would get over it, too.)
|
russ
|
|
response 249 of 255:
|
Jun 29 04:07 UTC 2000 |
Very interesting. After the M-Net decision to de-permit /usr/bbs/censored,
and after a certain board member who had voted for that policy re-entered
a response of mine that I had scribbled (perhaps 5 minutes after it was
entered), I cannot recall that Joe Saul had ANYTHING to say about that
board member's act (fairness, ethics or otherwise). Yet he pretends to
stand in judgement of Grex on that very issue.
The "ethics" do seem to depend whose ox is (potentially) gored.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out, Joe.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 250 of 255:
|
Jun 29 04:10 UTC 2000 |
Russ, my opinions change over time. It's called learning. Has it ever
happened to you?
|
remmers
|
|
response 251 of 255:
|
Jun 29 13:04 UTC 2000 |
Okay, I've gotten the update I needed from Greg. Here are the
results:
33 members voted. The totals are
yes 14
no 19
The motion failed.
(On a personal note, I'm somewhat surprised by this. I had expected
the motion to pass. So much for my ability to gauge the sentiments
of the body politic.)
The unofficial non-member vote went the other way: 57 yes, 33 no.
This was less of a surprise to me.
|
void
|
|
response 252 of 255:
|
Jun 29 14:56 UTC 2000 |
grex does not own my text and does not have the right to force me to
continue publishing it. period.
|
janc
|
|
response 253 of 255:
|
Jul 19 14:19 UTC 2000 |
An E-mail message from Joe Saul, with some new information:
========================================================================
From: "Joseph M. Saul"
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:05:34
To: janc@grex.cyberspace.org
Subject: User Control of Posts
One of the arguments raised against allowing Grex users to delete their
own posts has been that other big online services (I think Deja News
and Slashdot were cited) don't permit it, so it obviously isn't an
issue. Well, guess what...
Deja News *does* allow users to remove news posts from their archive,
and all they insist on is that you be able to receive email messages at
the address from which you posted the messages in question. No
notarized letters, no other anal-retentive bullshit. Yes, you do have
to go to their staff, but since you didn't enter the post from a "Deja
News account" in the same way that Grexers enter their posts from their
Grex accounts, they don't have an alternative. Here's the URL to their
form:
http://www.deja.com/forms/nuke.shtml
In other words, Grex is not following "current trends," wouldn't drag
the big guys in if a user sues because the big guys *do* provide a
convenient means for deleting posts, and in fact respects the rights of
its posters less than Deja News does. Which is saying something.
Feel free to post this in the appropriate location.
-- Joe
|
gull
|
|
response 254 of 255:
|
Jul 19 15:34 UTC 2000 |
I noticed that, too. They do make you jump through some hoops -- if you no
longer own the email address the messsage was posted from, you can't remove
it, and you need to submit a seperate request for each message you want
removed.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 255 of 255:
|
Aug 1 20:48 UTC 2000 |
Well, that makes sense. Kind of similar to if you lose your password
here, and have another e-mail address listed in your .plan and write
from it requesting staff reset your password, after perhaps some more
verification it will be done. Or that's how it used to work, they may
have changed it in the last few years.
|