|
Grex > Coop9 > #80: Modifying the concept of membership | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 115 responses total. |
ryan1
|
|
response 25 of 115:
| 
Mar 31 03:35 UTC 1997 |
Just to note one tiny problem with that: what if the owner of account X
decides to claim he/she is also the owner of account Y, when the owner
of account Y is the friend of the owner of account X?
|
aruba
|
|
response 26 of 115:
|
Mar 31 08:56 UTC 1997 |
Not sure what you mean, Ryan - could you be a little more detailed?
|
jenna
|
|
response 27 of 115:
|
Mar 31 16:15 UTC 1997 |
i should think, ryan, that for getting internet access you'd
still have to send in ID.
|
kaplan
|
|
response 28 of 115:
|
Mar 31 17:10 UTC 1997 |
I think grex would not care if person X sends in $ for two memberships
and lets person Y who is not identified use one of the accounts. Person
X would be the only voter, and if person Y violated our ISP's conditions
of use, grex would have to hold person X responsible. Person X would
have to accept blame or identify person Y so that the blame can be
shifted.
|
aruba
|
|
response 29 of 115:
|
Apr 1 06:01 UTC 1997 |
Right.
|
arthurp
|
|
response 30 of 115:
|
Apr 1 06:16 UTC 1997 |
Would that after the fact naming be accptable to CIC? We would be allowing
unknown people to use the connection even though we would be able to determine
who they were if we really had to.
|
aruba
|
|
response 31 of 115:
|
Apr 1 16:35 UTC 1997 |
Well, I mean, we allow lots of unnamed people to use the connection, and
occasionally one of them does something nasty that staff has to clean up
after. I don't think this scenario holds more danger than the risk that
some anonymous login will send out a mail bomb. So I'd be surprised if our
internet provider were worried about such details.
|
jenna
|
|
response 32 of 115:
|
Apr 2 18:33 UTC 1997 |
well it allows person x who really WAS used account z
to blame person y for something person x really DID
do...
|
aruba
|
|
response 33 of 115:
|
Apr 2 19:35 UTC 1997 |
Sorry, you lost me. Could you say that a different way?
|
pfv
|
|
response 34 of 115:
|
Apr 3 05:36 UTC 1997 |
Near as I can determine:
user A buys membership for A (identified) & B;
user B is left unidentified, and A takes responsibility for B;
users X, Y, Z and site AA, BB complain about user B -
User A is now fully responsible and A & B can both be
censured as appropriate for the situation.
|
aruba
|
|
response 35 of 115:
|
Apr 3 08:02 UTC 1997 |
Yes, that's right.
|
pfv
|
|
response 36 of 115:
|
Apr 3 16:40 UTC 1997 |
Sure, it's right... Now here is where it gets funky:
1) Staff has to have a keyed/linked-list of Patrone & (peasant?)
relationships;
2) if, in a fit of generosity or liberal-foolishness, the Patrone
takes on too many responsibilites, and
A) Any one of the "peasants" causes trouble, then:
B) ALL the peasants AND the patrone must suffer.. Including
the possibility of *reaping*
Now, hey - I'm all for the Patrone-gig.. But, I would expect the
staff to feel some sort of leniency under such an arrangement, or
worse: the board might get in there & make some sort of limp
"judgement-call"..
And, while the gig might salve a few conscience (sic), any sort of
leniency for the "set" or "group", (which wouldn't be applicable
to an individual), would be rather rude.
Yet, you can't but feel a bit sorry for the "anonymous peasant"
that is innocent.. (OTOH, they could get *real* and establish
their identity with staff, so it DOES actually work out fairly).
|
aruba
|
|
response 37 of 115:
|
Apr 3 18:02 UTC 1997 |
This is where reality kicks in - Grex is small enough that if anyone tries
maintain some complicated feudal arrangement, the treasurer (or someone else)
will notice and make the rules clear. I think that taking the scenario to
its logical extreme, as Pete has done, may be worth talking about, but I don't
think it's going to happen.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 38 of 115:
|
Apr 3 18:09 UTC 1997 |
I think the [theoretical] practice of patron A buying an account for
unverified B to use should be discouraged. A should just give B the
money, and let B send it in and get verified like anyone else. Then
there's no implied "mentoring" of B by A, and if B misbehaves, he alone
faces the consequences.
|
dpc
|
|
response 39 of 115:
|
Apr 3 21:42 UTC 1997 |
On M-Net we allow people to buy memberships/patronships for others.
This happens rarely enuf that we able to keep track of it and haven't
had any problems.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 40 of 115:
|
Apr 4 07:50 UTC 1997 |
St ate law defines a "member" as a "person". It allows multiple types of
"membership", but it is still "one person = one member".
|
aruba
|
|
response 41 of 115:
|
Apr 4 14:30 UTC 1997 |
That's it? All people are members?
|
jenna
|
|
response 42 of 115:
|
Apr 4 20:53 UTC 1997 |
Ok.. what I meant is person A could get in trouble and declare
that person b did it, when person b didn't have anything to dow ith it.
|
aruba
|
|
response 43 of 115:
|
Apr 4 21:01 UTC 1997 |
Re #42: I still don't understand how that could happen, unless you're
talking about a complicated feudal system like Pete is. Could you lay out
the whole scenario for us?
|
jenna
|
|
response 44 of 115:
|
Apr 5 05:29 UTC 1997 |
Alright. Login id Zebra (Sarah Smith) buys two accounts, a membership
for zebra and internet access for her friend login id kiwi. we never
know who is really using login id kiwi, as we require no information onthe
person. login id kiwi gets in big trouble spamming a website with
garbage from a form, or something. We contact Sarah Smith, she says
she can only take partial responsibility as Joe Smith is actually
kiwi. Joe Smith says, "I'm not kiwi! she's lying" what do we do then?
|
mary
|
|
response 45 of 115:
|
Apr 5 13:14 UTC 1997 |
I wish we'd stick with one membership per person. If someone
wants to give a gift of membership to another person, great.
If someone want to support Grex by giving more that the
membership dues, great. But I'd sure like to see no
more than one membership per person.
|
kaplan
|
|
response 46 of 115:
|
Apr 5 13:48 UTC 1997 |
Re 44: It's clear to me that the preson who bought the accounts should be held
responsible. Call it Sarah's punishment for not being able to trust that her
friend would behave like a responsible person.
|
jenna
|
|
response 47 of 115:
|
Apr 5 21:23 UTC 1997 |
Marty, no one is suggesting more than one full membership per
person. *EEK, MARY, sorry!* wE;re discussing second accounts
of members having internet access but not votes -- and people
buying accounts for un"validated" friends.
|
mary
|
|
response 48 of 115:
|
Apr 5 21:32 UTC 1997 |
By sanctioning second-generation telnet accounts
where the user of the account has not had to submit
identification (like everyone else) we'd be asking
for trouble.
Sorry, I don't think this is a good idea.
|
richard
|
|
response 49 of 115:
|
Apr 5 23:56 UTC 1997 |
Why do people even need logins to buy a membership? Suppose someone wants
to be a member but has no use to participate and no desire to register?
With unregisterd reading, you may have people who would be members but who
do not want logins. NOthing wrong with that.
There should be a web interface to the vote program, and !vote should
identify people by ss#'s or something. Grex should not require a login
for voting.
|