|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 299 responses total. |
naftee
|
|
response 250 of 299:
| 
Apr 17 06:05 UTC 2005 |
All my comments are both witty and funny. Anyone who filters me is missing
out, guy.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 251 of 299:
|
Apr 17 19:28 UTC 2005 |
i think you're neat.
|
richard
|
|
response 252 of 299:
|
Apr 17 20:27 UTC 2005 |
keesan said:
"I think everyone could easily agree on who to put on this list. You
can then personally add people whose opinions you don't want to read,
or whose spelling errors drive you crazy. I have only three of those
on my list, but two lines of vandal logins (probably traceable to 2 or
3 real individuals)."
That helps you and me and other regulars. The problem is that it
doesn't help new users coming here for the first time. The objective
neesd to be how can we keep grex's conferences looking clean and
readable so that people coming here for the first time want to come
back? Filters just aren't the answer for that
|
naftee
|
|
response 253 of 299:
|
Apr 17 20:30 UTC 2005 |
keesan filters you, happyboy :(
|
nharmon
|
|
response 254 of 299:
|
Apr 17 21:05 UTC 2005 |
"The twits I thought we were talking about filtering out are not posting
opinions or content, just strings of obscenity, or 50 copies of Plato,
intended specifically to be annoying and waste people's time."
Who gets to decide what is opinion/content, and what is just strings of
obscenity? And who gets to decide the difference between playing devils'
advocate, and wasting other people's time?
All I am saying, is that it won't stop at filtering people abusing the system.
Censorship will expand to include any dissenting opinion. In the beginning,
there will be excuses..."I'm not banning scholar because of his dissenting
opinion, but rather the manner he expressed it"...and in the end it'll be
"what? advocating microsoft windows??? he must be a troll".
It should provide for an interesting ride, thats for sure.
|
richard
|
|
response 255 of 299:
|
Apr 17 21:29 UTC 2005 |
nobody is advocating BANNING anybody. I am against the closing of
newuser. All I'm saying is that the fairwitness ought to have the
flexibility, in fact does have the flexibility, to look at an item and
decide whether that item is appropriate and fits in with the subject
matter of the conference. If somebody enters Plato's Republic in the
Sports conference, it doesn't need to stay there. It is not sports.
Create a "Useless" conference and let fw's move any inappropriate item
over to that conf. this isn't banning users, it is just saying that
the fw's are going to start taking care of the conferences they are
supposed to be taking care of. Once twit users see that their most
twittified posts are not going to stay up in the conferences, and will
invariably get moved to the Useless conference, they will stop
posting. Because few people will read the Useless conference.
That is not censorship because nobody is preventing them from posting.
It is saying that an fw can and should decide whether a post is
appropriate for a particular conference. This isn't unusual, this is
the way the vast majority of the boards that I use on the 'net actually
operate. You can't have subject appropriate boards on the 'net without
having moderators who make some effort to keep the boards "on subject"
In Agora, which is a general conf, you can simply say that all subjects
are appropriate but that the fw's have the discretion to decide that
certain posts are more appropriate for OTHER confs. An fw should be
able to move/link a post out of that conf into any other appropriate
conf.
|
glenda
|
|
response 256 of 299:
|
Apr 17 22:05 UTC 2005 |
Great! Then we get fw wars where one fw moves/links a posting that he/she
feels doesn't belong in his/her conf to a different conf. That conf's fw
feels that it is better elsewhere or back in the first conf and links/moves
to back. FWs currently cannot move/link posting from their conf to another,
they can only link from another conf to theirs. As a fw, I would not want
another fw dumping the garbage from their conf into mine without my say so.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 257 of 299:
|
Apr 17 23:26 UTC 2005 |
Hot Potato Ping Pong!
|
tod
|
|
response 258 of 299:
|
Apr 17 23:27 UTC 2005 |
re #243
How long before we start deciding that someone needs to be filtered just
because we don't agree with the political slant of his/her message?
That's what happened in the parenting conference with items about
breastfeeding. Of course, those that sided with the abuser will lie about
it because they will never allow those items to be restored to prove it.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 259 of 299:
|
Apr 18 00:21 UTC 2005 |
This is absolute madness. Maybe we should just constitute "free speach zones"
on Grex so that you people aren't offended by differing opinions.
|
scholar
|
|
response 260 of 299:
|
Apr 18 01:43 UTC 2005 |
I must state that I will (within all legal limits) attempt to disturb any
attempts at censorship obn Grex.
|
cross
|
|
response 261 of 299:
|
Apr 18 05:39 UTC 2005 |
The funny thing is that, ultimately, no one's actually going to do anything,
so all people are doing right now is talking about a bunch of things that
have about 0% chance of getting implemented. So, who cares?
|
naftee
|
|
response 262 of 299:
|
Apr 18 06:31 UTC 2005 |
We should add this discussion as an addendum to Plato's Republic.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 263 of 299:
|
Apr 18 17:27 UTC 2005 |
All these "slippery slope" arguments are so timersome. The first time you
do one thing that is in the problem space of another, you're just naturally
on the road to doing the other. Because you're quite clearly infantile and
unable to discern X from Y. Puh-leeze. I don't know if there *is* any good
answer to the twits, but not doing something which might be effective just
because it seems like some kind of censorship and so perforce will lead to
all other manner of censorship is crapola.
|
cross
|
|
response 264 of 299:
|
Apr 18 18:12 UTC 2005 |
Maybe. But the probability of anyone actually getting off their ass
and doing anything is slim to none.
|
tod
|
|
response 265 of 299:
|
Apr 18 18:23 UTC 2005 |
re #264
I disagree. I bet there is at least one person on staff that has censored
individuals without much notice other than from the victim.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 266 of 299:
|
Apr 18 19:09 UTC 2005 |
r253: that's ok, i really don't read her stuff either
she's too much of a nun.
|
cross
|
|
response 267 of 299:
|
Apr 18 19:43 UTC 2005 |
Probably, but I doubt anyone is going to go to the effort to implement
anything more advanced than the crude censorship capabilities we have
now.
|
tod
|
|
response 268 of 299:
|
Apr 18 19:47 UTC 2005 |
re #267
I would hate to see the effort wasted when there are more fruitful projects
like enterprise wide spam filter defaults.
|
md
|
|
response 269 of 299:
|
Apr 23 15:26 UTC 2005 |
Sometimes the little kid who goes from person to person at a party
repeating "Booger!" is actually more entertaining than the partygoers
themselves. I would be very reluctant to send that little kid out of
the room and am usually sorry to see it happen. On the other hand, you
couldn't really call it "censorship" to do so, could you?
|
naftee
|
|
response 270 of 299:
|
Apr 23 16:15 UTC 2005 |
booger.
i haven't used that word since second grade
|
scholar
|
|
response 271 of 299:
|
Apr 23 16:44 UTC 2005 |
AHAH GUYS DID YOU KNOWONE TIME THERE WAS A FAMOUS EUROPEAN FAMILY NAMED THE
FUGGERS
|
tod
|
|
response 272 of 299:
|
Apr 23 17:30 UTC 2005 |
If everyone agreed who the "little kid" is then you'd have a point but
everyone on Grex has different definitions for twit.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 273 of 299:
|
Apr 23 21:12 UTC 2005 |
The main problem is that the little kid generally isn't capable of
appreciating the distinction that, althoug doing something once will
elicit attention and might even be funny, doing the same thing a
hundred more times will not be funny.
Simpsons writers struggle with this issue all the time -- when you have
a bit which is essentially the same thing repeated over and over (e.g.
"Will you take us to Mount Slashmore?") how many times does it remain
funny? It's not a simple curve. At first it's a bit funny, then after
you repeat it three or four times it loses its funniness. But after
seven or ten times, if you time it right, it gets funny again.
The key is to have proper timing such that:
- It gets funny again (something little kids are unlikely to be able to
do properly)
- You stop doing it when it's funny again, rather than continuing on to
the point where it's tiresome
|
tod
|
|
response 274 of 299:
|
Apr 24 00:00 UTC 2005 |
THANSK MARC!!
|