response 37 of 120:

Jan 28 22:12 UTC 2000

To read about the sympathy conference: see
  resp:coop6,9,104-
  item:coop6,96

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?

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.)

response 51 of 120:

Jan 31 18:45 UTC 2000

        Which "issues"? 

        Dolts from india entering useless items?

        The vast and complete vocabulary of "foul language"?

        'Grexies' entering bullshit pseudo-politics/science?

        I'd be more than happy with a 'twit' manpage.

response 53 of 120:

Jan 31 19:57 UTC 2000

Richard, type "!f cfadm" to see who the current cfadms are.

response 55 of 120:

Feb 1 01:50 UTC 2000

Yes.  Also, Valerie and I are backup cfadm's.  In addition, void and
arthurp may still be cfadm's, but I don't think they're active
currently.  (I'm on Backtalk and can't type "!f cfadm" to see the
current list.)

I agree with cmcgee's #52.  I don't want to be a hall monitor.

response 57 of 120:

Feb 1 02:18 UTC 2000

respond, pass, forget, quit, or ? for more options? !f cfadm
Login: cfadm                            Name: PicoSpan file owner
Directory: /bbs/home                    Shell: /bin/csh
Last login Sat Jan  1 23:12 (EST) on ttyr4 from 204.212.46.132
Mail aliased to:
 valerie
 remmers
 scott
 void
 arthurp
 i
No Plan.
!


Looks like the only one not mentioned is void.

response 59 of 120:

Feb 1 04:05 UTC 2000

Re 57 - <robh notes that void was mentioned in response 55 of this item>

response 61 of 120:

Feb 1 06:32 UTC 2000

let's keep working the idea