|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 73 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 25 of 73:
| 
Jan 8 18:54 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
willcome
|
|
response 26 of 73:
|
Jan 8 19:30 UTC 2004 |
YAY!
|
naftee
|
|
response 27 of 73:
|
Jan 8 23:01 UTC 2004 |
AYAYAYAYAY!!!
|
jep
|
|
response 28 of 73:
|
Jan 9 00:41 UTC 2004 |
The blog conference, in my opinion, would only work if each user had
the capabilities of a f-w within his own item. The easiest way to do
that within Picospan would be to make a separate blog conference for
each user.
Now, *that*, in my opinion, has potential. Create a separate
conference for any user who wants one. On NextGrex, there will be
enough disk space to allow this.
I would want the blog conference to be on a separate filesystem from
other conferences. Currently, a fairwitness can link an item into his
conference, then censor or scribble responses from that item. I
wouldn't want to give any and all users the ability to do that to items
in the public conferences, just on request.
Maybe there's a way in Picospan and/or Backtalk to eliminate the link
command from the powers given to a f-w. Have the blog conferences
owned by an alternative "cfadm" user, call it "blogadm", who doesn't
have access to the link command, for example. Then bloggers couldn't
mess with each other's blogs.
|
krj
|
|
response 29 of 73:
|
Jan 9 00:55 UTC 2004 |
Common legal wisdom on online forums is that the forum and its staff
can only dodge liability for libel issues when they don't exercise
editorial control or moderation of the content. Is this still
seen as the case?
|
ryan
|
|
response 30 of 73:
|
Jan 9 01:40 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 31 of 73:
|
Jan 9 01:50 UTC 2004 |
If you really want a blog conference, you'd need a method whereby individual
authors of items could moderate and censor comments to his/her blog. By this,
I don't mean change someone's words, but be able to delete comments they're
not comfortable with, or disallow certain users to post. Without this you're
just going to have a whole bunck of nuked items becomes someone went aheand
a posted nasrty comments on people's blogs.
|
mary
|
|
response 32 of 73:
|
Jan 9 02:04 UTC 2004 |
I would like to see the blog conference incorporate all of your
wishes, if the software allows. It would be an interesting
experiment. But my support goes *poof* if all of this censorship
power isn't clearly displayed as a warning on the conference login
page.
|
mary
|
|
response 33 of 73:
|
Jan 9 02:14 UTC 2004 |
Actually, I'm going to ammend that last comment slightly.
You state you'd like the FW to be able to choose who has
access to the conference. That's not something I'd support
Grex doing even on an experimental basis. I guess we all
have our limits. ;-)
|
naftee
|
|
response 34 of 73:
|
Jan 9 02:20 UTC 2004 |
It seems none of you guys have ever heard of the rc file.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 35 of 73:
|
Jan 9 03:00 UTC 2004 |
Re 33> If that was a response to my post, I meant that the author should have
control over who could respond to their individual blog in the conference.
(If we decie to have individual conferences for individual blogs, yes, then
the FW)
I know it's not Grex policy to do that, and I don't want to see that happen
either. But without such a provision, we're going to have pretty unhappy
bloggers. Which is why I don't think the conference is such a good idea. But
I'm willing to see it as an experiment. But then I wouldn't participate in
it, except to read it.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 36 of 73:
|
Jan 9 03:17 UTC 2004 |
Re #29: No. One of the surviving parts of the CDA changed that.
|
jep
|
|
response 37 of 73:
|
Jan 9 05:18 UTC 2004 |
I believe my suggestion of making a separate filesystem for the blog
conferences, and having separate conferences for each blog, is
workable on Grex using Picospan. There are no obvious technical
obstacles to it.
A conference on Grex is a subdirectory of /bbs, and also a line
in /bbs/conflist. For example:
ag_ora:%agora48
The line in /bbs/conflist can point to directories which are not
subdirectories of /bbs. I don't recall the exact syntax, but I
imagine it would look like this:
jep:/blog/jep
The biggest obstacles are not the space or separate directory required
for the conference itself, it would be the participation files. A
different participation file is needed for each conference you read.
If blogs, using my proposed format, become common, then some users
might have thousands of participation files for them, with each
consuming 1 block of disk space and 1 inode. I speculate a block on
the home filesystem for NextGrex will be 1K, so 1000 participation
files would occupy 1 MB.
There's nothing preposterous so far. Disk space is really, really
cheap these days.
If blogs using this system become really popular, it might be well to
automate the creation of the blog conference directory and entry
in /bbs/conflist.
Now for the advantages. The powers suggested for the blog conference
are the same powers a fw already has. A fw of his own blog conference
can make use of the rc, login, logout, index and bulletin files to
customize his conference. He can remove -- but not edit -- responses
or items. It would be possible, if the cfadm set it up that way, to
have lists to permit or restrict individual loginids access, or write
access, to the conference.
As I said previously, I am not familiar with blogs, but it seems to me
this ought to add up to a pretty reasonable capability for producing a
blog.
|
davel
|
|
response 38 of 73:
|
Jan 9 13:33 UTC 2004 |
Just as a technical matter, for that to work you'd need a separate FS for each
blog conference. Otherwise, anyone could link someone else's blog into his
conference & refuse to delete it. I don't think it'll work, John.
|
jep
|
|
response 39 of 73:
|
Jan 9 15:10 UTC 2004 |
Is there no way to disable the link capability for the fairwitness of a
conference?
|
other
|
|
response 40 of 73:
|
Jan 9 16:25 UTC 2004 |
If I were to guess, I'd say that linking is just another way of
saying "creating a symlink" and as far as I know, there is no way to
prevent anyone with write access to a directory from creating a
symlink to any other file on the filesystem to which that user has
read access.
Am I wrong on this?
|
jp2
|
|
response 41 of 73:
|
Jan 9 16:28 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 42 of 73:
|
Jan 9 16:33 UTC 2004 |
Ok, correction noted, but in what way does that alter my conclusion
(that there's really no way to prevent item linking by anyone with
fw access to the conference directory without significantly
rewriting picospan to redefine the functions of or create a whole
new class of fw)?
|
jp2
|
|
response 43 of 73:
|
Jan 9 17:05 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 44 of 73:
|
Jan 9 17:15 UTC 2004 |
or #0, since #1 is rather short on verbage of any useful sort.
|
jp2
|
|
response 45 of 73:
|
Jan 9 17:43 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 46 of 73:
|
Jan 9 17:58 UTC 2004 |
Yeah but what's that in binary, huh? :p
|
jp2
|
|
response 47 of 73:
|
Jan 9 18:01 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 48 of 73:
|
Jan 9 19:49 UTC 2004 |
You've been reading too much Doug Adams.
|
mary
|
|
response 49 of 73:
|
Jan 9 21:29 UTC 2004 |
You folks are setting yourself up for disappointment
here. If you enter text in a blog conference, with all
kinds of special rules about how you'll be in control
of your own text, etc., etc., you be begging folks to
save copies of your items just because they can.
Doubt it? Check out M-net about a day after you
start feeling comfortable with your new control.
Grex is public. You shouldn't enter anything here
you don't want public. If you do, the system is
gracious enough to allow you to remove your words.
But we can't go any further and it's unrealistic to
expect we can make your mistakes go away.
|