|
Grex > Coop11 > #188: A policy response to Joe Saul's legal threat to Grex | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 88 responses total. |
jmsaul
|
|
response 25 of 88:
| 
Jul 11 04:27 UTC 2000 |
Hippy.
;-)
|
janc
|
|
response 26 of 88:
|
Jul 11 06:12 UTC 2000 |
Who you calling a conservative? Them's fighting words.
Frogs in the Sahara? Damn, another fine line ruined by the facts.
There's an implied license when someone posts something here. It gives
Grex all the obvious rights and not a whit more. Which is exactly what
I think we should require. The only reason for writing a license would
be to try to take more than the minimum rights over a user's postings,
which I think would be wrong. The implied license gives us exactly what
I think we should have, and doesn't cost us any attorney's fees to get
written to the exacting standard such a thing would have to be written to.
|
jp2
|
|
response 27 of 88:
|
Jul 11 12:14 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 28 of 88:
|
Jul 11 13:38 UTC 2000 |
Re #26: The limitation of an implied license is that an express disavowal
revokes it. Which is why you can't continue to publish something
on Grex after the poster asks you not to. (And I liked the frogs
line, too.)
|
janc
|
|
response 29 of 88:
|
Jul 12 06:16 UTC 2000 |
Right, but I consider that a feature.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 30 of 88:
|
Jul 12 15:17 UTC 2000 |
I do too. Take care, and come visit me on M-Net, Jan.
|
prp
|
|
response 31 of 88:
|
Jul 12 16:08 UTC 2000 |
This whole thing is silly. Grex does not continue to publish things,
you publish them once, and then Grex keeps archives.
You can not write a letter to the editor, have it published in the
newspaper, and then go to the library and have it removed from the
back issues collection.
It would be nice if one could edit a response, but that is a whole
different issue.
|
pfv
|
|
response 32 of 88:
|
Jul 12 17:08 UTC 2000 |
This ain't a Library, nor a newspaper: more spastic examples..
|
scott
|
|
response 33 of 88:
|
Jul 12 20:34 UTC 2000 |
OK, it *isn't* a Library or a newspaper.
So what? There are still basic principles here.
|
pfv
|
|
response 34 of 88:
|
Jul 13 03:31 UTC 2000 |
There are? Which principles? Whose Principles? Are these
Principles published somewhere? Somewhere everyone sees?
All the time?
On the one hand it's a "community" and on the other, a Regime.
(I don't EVEN wanna' think of what's on the Gripping Hand..)
|
gull
|
|
response 35 of 88:
|
Jul 13 03:35 UTC 2000 |
I think the idea of requiring a letter is to prevent staff from being
overrun by spurious, trivial requests. You need *some* kind of energy
barrier if you make it a manual process.
I don't see the legal issue as a major problem, since in the unlikely event
it ever comes up, there's nothing stopping staff from removing the person's
posts if they feel strongly enough to threaten a lawsuit. While I would
have preferred to see the log depermitted, as things are right now we can
cross that particular bridge in the unlikely event we ever come to it.
|
russ
|
|
response 36 of 88:
|
Jul 13 04:17 UTC 2000 |
It's exactly the (possible, and arguable) limitations of the implied
license, which some litigious people are threatening to argue at
Grex's expense, which call for Grex to demand an explicit license that
can't be terminated at whim and cause us all kinds of problems. This
removes the issue from the courts to our own milieu, where we can
settle things at our own pace and on our own terms.
Fairness certainly comes into it. People should absolutely have the
capability (as they do now) to remove things from the normal flow of
discussion. /bbs/censored is certainly outside that flow, and I
assume it's emptied every so often so it eventually loses even that
bit of visibility. But to try to purge something from existence -
once someone has read it, it's likely impossible. Why on earth should
we let anyone pretend otherwise, especially at the cost of the mischief
which has already resulted from the attempt?
"Your lack of preparation does not constitute our emergency." That's
what Grex should tell everyone who posts here. I'm more than willing
to discuss things with people, and try to do what's fair for everyone
(including the readers, who shouldn't be faced with sudden holes in
the context of what they're seeing). What we should do RIGHT NOW is
remove the handle by which Grex can be bullied, and get that license.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 37 of 88:
|
Jul 13 04:23 UTC 2000 |
Russ, you aren't going to get the license.
|
dpc
|
|
response 38 of 88:
|
Jul 13 15:55 UTC 2000 |
Is the Secretary of State willing to issue the license? Would
"drunk conferencing" be a reason to revoke the license?
|
void
|
|
response 39 of 88:
|
Jul 13 17:39 UTC 2000 |
right now grex has no irrevocable license to force me to continue
publishing my text. it has no irrevocable license to force anyone to
continue publishing their text. no such license is implied. however,
the way the scribble command currently works is dishonest.
|
scott
|
|
response 40 of 88:
|
Jul 13 18:50 UTC 2000 |
I'm a little miffed by all the people who are so up in arms about licensing
and such, when for *years* now they've been posting stuff without appearing
to care a bit about whether their text will be around forever.
(Not to single you out, Dru. I've been thinking about this for a while now)
|
gull
|
|
response 41 of 88:
|
Jul 13 19:37 UTC 2000 |
It *does* seem to be an issue that a few people have created out of thin
air.
|
gypsi
|
|
response 42 of 88:
|
Jul 13 19:43 UTC 2000 |
Re #40: Because I didn't realize scribble didn't mean "delete" until I was
surprised in February. I had scribbled something so I could rewrite it in a
way that wouldn't hurt someone, but someone else posted how to read the
scribble log and see what I'd said. It was shocking, and I got really ticked
at the "nyah nyah nyah" quality of it.
Now that I know scribble doesn't do a damn thing and that I can't adjust my
text or remove it if, at a later date, I or someone decides it would be best if
it wasn't public knowledge, I'm a little upset. That's why I voted for the
"staff-only" perm on the scribble log.
But, of course, my vote didn't count. ;-) Why does the vote program let
non-members vote? Just for the comparison study?
|
srw
|
|
response 43 of 88:
|
Jul 14 00:56 UTC 2000 |
I think users give implied consent to Grex to display their messages,
since that's the whole point of posting. There's nothing inconsistent,
hypocritical, or dishonest about a posting owned by its author but
displayed under the implied consent given by posting it on a BBS.
However, I voted with the minority, because I think it would be better
policy to allow posters to revoke. I think it would be friendlier of
Grex, and that this friendlier policy would encourage participation,
not discourage thinking over the post before sending it. I have
substantial doubts that if the policy remains as it is that it will
materially increase the amount of thought that goes into the average
post. I just don't buy that argument much.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 44 of 88:
|
Jul 14 04:10 UTC 2000 |
<DRIFT>
It looks like the vote program accepts our votes because it is more responsive
to 'late' joiners to get the list of members as of the close of the vote
than to rely on new members getting added to the right group in time to
use the vote program.
</DRIFT>
|
richard
|
|
response 45 of 88:
|
Jul 14 14:19 UTC 2000 |
cant the /bbs/censored log just be encrypted so that if material ends up
in that log, noone who didnt have the de-encryption key could read it?
or the encryption could be optional, such as that when a user scribbles
their text, the system could prompt them "would you like this text tobe
permanently encrypted in the log files (y/n)?"
|
gull
|
|
response 46 of 88:
|
Jul 14 14:20 UTC 2000 |
How would that be better than simply only letting staff read it?
|
gypsi
|
|
response 47 of 88:
|
Jul 14 15:01 UTC 2000 |
My thoughts exactly. That proposal was shot down, Richard.
|
void
|
|
response 48 of 88:
|
Jul 14 15:21 UTC 2000 |
re resp:40: true, i have been posting here for about five years now,
but like sarah, i had no idea that scribble didn't really scribble until
february. there seem to be a number of users who think they were
deceived by the fact that the scribble command does not do what it
implies it does.
i don't remember if i have ever attempted to scribble something on
grex, which means that if i have, it has not been often. however, when
i think the need arises to remove some of my text -- *my* text, which
grex does not own -- then i should be able to do so, no quibbles or
questions. to borrow someone else's analogy, the coffee might be hot,
but it's mine.
|
gypsi
|
|
response 49 of 88:
|
Jul 14 16:57 UTC 2000 |
I think I've scribbled maybe seven responses in the five years I've been here,
and a couple of those were merely screw-ups thanks to lag or whatnot. So it's
not like I want to go interrupting the flow of an item or scribbling things
every few days just to keep people irritated. I just like knowing that in
times I feel it's justified, the text can be *deleted*. I'm good at holding my
own in an argument to justify what I've said, so posting again after the
"inflammatory" text is an option I've used.
There was a time, however, when I shared some information about a friend's
happy occurance, not thinking they'd get mad. They did, and didn't like people
knowing. I scribbled it, thinking it would be gone forever and told them that.
They felt better. But nope. It was still there, and people who knew how to
tail back the right amount could have found it. Not cool.
So, I like the idea of politely asking staff to delete something from the
scribble log. Even if the public can still read the log, I'd like to be able
to permanently delete something. I know staff has a lot of work already, but
that's (still) my position.
How many people really save all of the responses to cfs onto their hard drives?
I keep hearing that analogy.
|