|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 120 responses total. |
pfv
|
|
response 25 of 120:
| 
Jan 28 01:08 UTC 2000 |
I also expect that, should grex experience an mnut-like
"hera-hell", (where she posted some 30 or 40 'items' with the same
inanity), that cfadm or root might just slip into her account and
simply kill 'em all.. Or leave but one.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 26 of 120:
|
Jan 28 02:28 UTC 2000 |
Nope, I wouldn't expect that AT ALL on Grex.
re scg's idea that the board could change the policy. Yes, perhaps they
could. However, a member vote can overturn any board action. So, given a
proposal that is already creating dissent and controversy, I hope the
board would be sensible enough not to inject itself into the controversy
by taking an action, pro or con, that would outrage the rest of us and
guarantee a rancorous member vote.
Grex has managed in the past to come to concensus around issues that
seemed divisive at first. I suggest we give this issue plenty of time for
discussion, suggested solutions, and all-around creative thinking.
|
scg
|
|
response 27 of 120:
|
Jan 28 03:18 UTC 2000 |
If I remember correctly what the bylaws say, a membership vote and a board
vote have equal weight. That is, as far as the bylaws are concerned, the
membership can overrule the board, and the board can overrule the membership,
and if there were a strong disagreement between the two groups they could keep
overruling eachother on a given issue until one of the groups gave up, or
until the members got fed up and recalled the board. However, that's not
really an issue, since the board has historically always refused to overrule
the members, even years after a membership vote on a subject.
I've generally claimed that the members elect the board to make tough
decisions, and that the board should do so. If a member disagrees strongly
enough, they can call a membership vote. I was never able to get the rest
of the board to agree with me on that, resulting in some pretty trivial
membership votes on issues that could have just as well been dealt with by
the board.
|
other
|
|
response 28 of 120:
|
Jan 28 03:50 UTC 2000 |
this may be the perfect opportunity to revisit the idea of private
conferences. i still think this is a good concept.
basically, any user could create a conference for which they themselves
would be the moderator/fw, with full edit access, and only those people
invited by the fw would have access (in addition to staff, as root, but
that would be implied anyway). such conferences could be accessible via
backtalk to permitted users, and could be included in users' .cflists, but
would not be included in public conference lists.
this way, there is no need for a change in policy, and those who are
interested in moderated conferences can either ask to join an existing one,
or start their own.
|
other
|
|
response 29 of 120:
|
Jan 28 03:51 UTC 2000 |
should i start another item to pursue this?
|
remmers
|
|
response 30 of 120:
|
Jan 28 11:53 UTC 2000 |
It's incorrect to say that no policy change would be needed for private
conferences. A few years ago, the membership voted that all
conferences on Grex shall be public except for the staff conference.
This discussion strikes me as an effort to fix something that isn't
broken. On the Decorum conference specifically, if Paul wants it then
of course he can have it. Then it's up to him to attract interested
users. Personally, I suspect that it would join the ranks of "dead
conferences" that have been complained about elsewhere, but who knows,
I could be wrong.
|
aruba
|
|
response 31 of 120:
|
Jan 28 19:21 UTC 2000 |
(He can't have the power to censor responses, though.)
|
prp
|
|
response 32 of 120:
|
Jan 28 19:35 UTC 2000 |
"something that isn't broken", or actually something that remmers doesn't
see as broken. Many other people do see it as broken.
People nobody is proposing censorship! Unless maybe there is a Grex
policy with a really oddball definition.
By the way, what is it that fair-witnesses do? The policy seems to be
that they have to exist, but that they aren't allowed to do anything.
Grex has a very active censorship program. It is called the anti-spam
campain.
|
prp
|
|
response 33 of 120:
|
Jan 28 19:41 UTC 2000 |
Re 15 mary: "have your own children". Are you offering to carry them?
|
prp
|
|
response 34 of 120:
|
Jan 28 19:57 UTC 2000 |
Re 21 aruba:
I would look through the discussion of the sympathy conference, if I
could find it. I looked and all I found was that the conference is
almost exactly five years old, and has no items at all.
|
prp
|
|
response 35 of 120:
|
Jan 28 20:06 UTC 2000 |
Another policy question: How can the Archive confernece exist, given
that only the fair-witness can enter items?
|
remmers
|
|
response 36 of 120:
|
Jan 28 21:07 UTC 2000 |
Re #32: Right, it's my opinion. But regardless of what I think,
you can have a shot at it if you want it. The proof of the
pudding is in the eating.
|
aruba
|
|
response 37 of 120:
|
Jan 28 22:12 UTC 2000 |
To read about the sympathy conference: see
resp:coop6,9,104-
item:coop6,96
|
mary
|
|
response 38 of 120:
|
Jan 29 00:23 UTC 2000 |
I think Paul should start this conference. Nothing will make the point
better than trying it out.
Every once in a while this discussion *has* to come up. And each go
around is a worthwhile and important as the last time - heck, as
important as the *first* time.
I'm going to take a pass on carrying your love child, Paul. But thanks
for asking. Wow, at my age that's the next best compliment to being
carded.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 39 of 120:
|
Jan 29 00:33 UTC 2000 |
I was getting confused about exactly what was being proposed for the Decorum
conference, so I went back to Item 152 and tried to copy specifics.
Here is what I've found. Everyone feel free to say how these have changed,
or what I've left out.
One possible solution I would like to see is a new conference, called say
Decorum. It would have some guidelines, maybe even one placing a limit on
the rate of new responses. Given the existence of Agora, explicitly with no
rules, this should be workable.
Decorum would be a civilized alternative to Agora, for people who like some
order more than total free speech, and dislike say foul language.
I've been talking with Paul about that issue; we've come to the conclusion
that it would be enforced by going in and retiring items, expurgating
responses, etc. There will be a very fine line between unpopular opinion and
nondecorous talk which will be very hard to walk on.
My current thinking is that Decorum fw wouldn't be a censor, but rather an
editor. Of course they wouldn't have the time to be a real editor, so we have
the decorum golden rule:
EDIT YOURSELF.
The FW then asks the question: does it meet our standards? If not, it gets
moved someplace else, say cutting-room-floor.
An alternative would be a conference where only the editors could enter
items. Authors would mail to editors.
The former approach should be easiest, and I think it will work given the
nature of the people who will be attracted to it. There will of course be
vandals in cyberlife, as in reallife.
___________________
While I can understand wanting "some order more than total free speech",
without changing the operating guidelines for Grex as a whole, I don't see
that we can allow it.
First, we cannot limit access to a conference.
Second, FWs cannot change someone else's comments in an item, or block someone
starting a new item. All they can do is freeze an item so no more comments
can be added to it.
Even with a conference where the FWs freeze every item as they go, there is
no way to stop entry of items, and comments on those items until such time
as a FW shows up to freeze the item.
So, given these operating rules, what would the Decorum conference look like?
|
other
|
|
response 40 of 120:
|
Jan 29 00:34 UTC 2000 |
Mary, it continues to amaze me how gracefully you handle the most potentially
annoying comments! Bravo!
|
mary
|
|
response 41 of 120:
|
Jan 29 01:23 UTC 2000 |
(Mary blushes.) (A rare event.) ;-)
Paul could run this conference on links and submitted items.
Anything from any other conference could be linked in and as soon as
anything objectionable is said, poof, he unlinks it.
He could solicit new items, receive them by email, edit them to meet his
standards, and enter them in the conferences attributing them to the
author, as appropriate. He should probably use some technique to let the
reader know when a submitted text had been edited.
He'd have total control of the conference's content.
|
mary
|
|
response 42 of 120:
|
Jan 29 01:25 UTC 2000 |
s/conference/conferences
|
davel
|
|
response 43 of 120:
|
Jan 29 13:52 UTC 2000 |
What would stop any random user from entering a new item? I suppose the FW
could maintain a policy of killing all such items immediately, maybe.
|
mary
|
|
response 44 of 120:
|
Jan 29 17:50 UTC 2000 |
It could be set-up along the lines of the Intro and Archive
conferences. Weren't they permed read only? In a way this
is a whole lot like the the Intro conference in that one person
is offering to distill the whole of the conferences down to
what he thinks users wouldn't mind seeing.
The conference would probably be DOA, but I'd like to see
Paul give it a try.
|
carson
|
|
response 45 of 120:
|
Jan 29 18:05 UTC 2000 |
(if it's permed "read-only," there isn't a good way to tell
whether it's DOA, dead, or thriving, cuz there wouldn't be
any new responses from within the conference.)
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 46 of 120:
|
Jan 30 04:55 UTC 2000 |
No, Intro was not a read only conference. It was a regular, open conference
and anyone could enter an item. It did have a few links that were not
terribly active, but were practical, like foreign language items.
|
robh
|
|
response 47 of 120:
|
Jan 30 05:19 UTC 2000 |
Indeed, a few new members did enter "hi im new" items in Intro.
I just pointed them to Agora as the more appropriate place
for those tiems.
|
mary
|
|
response 48 of 120:
|
Jan 30 12:54 UTC 2000 |
Oh.
Nevermind. ;-)
|
janc
|
|
response 49 of 120:
|
Jan 31 05:51 UTC 2000 |
(Once upon a time on M-Net, long before rules were invented, I, working under
the name "Muffled Puffin (People's Tyrant)", hijacked a conference and
declared it a Creative Dictatorship, in which only creative responses were
allowed. I used root powers to freely edit anyone's responses that didn't
meet my exacting standards, which was pretty much everyone, myself included.
It wasn't a big success, but then, it wasn't meant to be.)
|