|
Grex > Coop11 > #188: A policy response to Joe Saul's legal threat to Grex | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 88 responses total. |
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.
|
pfv
|
|
response 50 of 88:
|
Jul 14 17:17 UTC 2000 |
An even closer analogy is that users would save every issue of the
A2 News.. Or spend the time MANUALLY searching backissues at a
library.
Specious examples at best.
|
scott
|
|
response 51 of 88:
|
Jul 14 18:41 UTC 2000 |
Maybe not likely, but still possible. And isn't what this is all about, the
"possible" instead of the "certain"?
|
richard
|
|
response 52 of 88:
|
Jul 14 18:49 UTC 2000 |
well there isnt a point to a /bbs/censor log unles someone has access to
it...why not encrypt the file and then say that only one person designated
on the staff has thekey, instead of the whole staff. There are security
reasons why that log has to be kept at all, then just limit staff access
to one person, a cfadmin I s'pse
|
gypsi
|
|
response 53 of 88:
|
Jul 14 18:52 UTC 2000 |
Once again, we've voted on that. It lost. I'm not saying this a third time.
|
scott
|
|
response 54 of 88:
|
Jul 14 21:01 UTC 2000 |
Richard, I don't think you understand the tech issue. We were voting over
setting permissions on the censored log so that only staff could read it.
Adding encryption wouldn't be of any benefit.
|
aruba
|
|
response 55 of 88:
|
Jul 14 21:18 UTC 2000 |
I was wondering when richard would decide to join the scribble debate.
Welcome, richard! I'm sure if you try, you can keep this going for another
couple of months.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 56 of 88:
|
Jul 14 21:30 UTC 2000 |
I understand the sentiment of looking for a compromise, but when you carefully
consider this proposal to allow staff to delete responses on request, it
becomes ridiculous: The people who voted down the proposal to make scribbled
responses publicly inaccessible did so because it offended their notion of
BBS purity. No one ever said that "well, if staff does it, then it's OK".
It's the same issue: Whether BBS content, once posted, can be truly hidden
upon the wishes of the poster. Those people who voted down the other proposal
should vote down this one, if they are to be consistent and not capricious.
Having a staffer hide text instead of the poster doesn't alter the offending
concept of letting the poster decide to "remove" (hide) his posts. If staff
will hide posts in all cases without evaluation, then it's stupid to get them
involved in the first place: Just let the poster do it. It might be
different if there were no way for the poster to do it. But we already know
there is a way. And we know the other proposal was voted down, however
narrowly.
|
janc
|
|
response 57 of 88:
|
Jul 15 19:45 UTC 2000 |
The assumption is that if you have to jump through a few hoops (asking live
people, pasting stamps on letters, etc.) then people will only do it if they
are serious about it. This will keep the censorship down because only in the
extremely rare cases where their is something *really* bad there will people
do it.
Of course, this won't exactly work. Some people will likely do it just to
tweak people off.
But I figure I'd write a tool that makes deleting specific things and sets
of things from the censored log easy. Then it won't be any particular bother
for staff to do the deletions. The user will have to first censor everything,
then send us a letter, so he'll be working much harder than we are. Nobody
will be all that ticked off by the thing and the whole idea of doing it for
kicks will fade away.
So I'm OK with the send-a-letter-to-delete-from-log thing. It might win a
few more votes.
|
jp2
|
|
response 58 of 88:
|
Jul 15 20:17 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
eeyore
|
|
response 59 of 88:
|
Jul 15 22:50 UTC 2000 |
Out of curiousity, while this is being debated, we probably ought to post
something on the MOTD that says something like "If you use scribble, you ought
to read "____" help file to learn more about it" or something like
that....just so that people who aren't reading this (and the hundreds of
others) argument, aren't completely out of the loop.
|
flem
|
|
response 60 of 88:
|
Jul 16 16:33 UTC 2000 |
Nietzsche once said, "At times one remains faithful to a cause
only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." Change a
word or two and this would describe rather well why I think the
vote to deperm the censored log failed.
As time passes and various options are discussed, I'm finding
the notion of being able to delete postings completely less
distateful. But I, and I suspect many grexers agree with me on
this, strongly dislike being told I have no choice in the matter.
Arguments like "You *have* to do it, or you're Evil", "You have
to do it or I'll go away and not come back", "You have to do it
because I said so" and the like are, as anyone who knows me will
attest, one of the best ways to get me not to do something.
There have been an awful lot of those kinds of arguments thrown
around in this discussion, and it's probably turned more people
than just me off to the whole question. But calm, sane arguments
like #43 and #49 are much more persuasive. Enough so that I'd
support a proposal to have staff delete text from the censored
log on request.
|
void
|
|
response 61 of 88:
|
Jul 16 18:31 UTC 2000 |
ok...i'm not trying to be inflammatory here, i'm simply asking a
question: since posters own their own text, why is there a need to
involve staff in scribbling text? it seems an unnecessary step when
posters could do it themselves.
|
scott
|
|
response 62 of 88:
|
Jul 16 19:32 UTC 2000 |
I think you're making an assumption that not everyone here agrees with.
You're assuming that you own your text in a specific way, and that you are
only putting it out in public on the assumption that you can later remove it
completely. I don't agree with that, sinceit assumes that nobody is saving
a copy on their own hard drive, etc.
|
aruba
|
|
response 63 of 88:
|
Jul 16 22:21 UTC 2000 |
I agree with #60.
|
pfv
|
|
response 64 of 88:
|
Jul 16 22:44 UTC 2000 |
> I think you're making an assumption that not everyone here agrees with.
Everyone ELSE seems to be doing the same. So what?
> You're assuming that you own your text in a specific way..
Anyone would, as there is NOTHING that *reminds* you otherwise..
Indeed, there is nothing one can even infer from the fact this is
NOT Uselessnet or some doze-based equiv. Further, as I recently
said to Russ: Uselessnet is MILLIONS, and Grex has never mentioned
it wants to be related - rather, that it's a smaller COMMUNITY.
I'd further state that Grex has no RIGHT to those posts UNLESS IT
SPECIFIES such a contention BEFORE a user "signs the contract".
(Feel free to delete EVERY POST I'VE EVER MADE - including the
stuff in Jellyware I've deliberately left available.. I won't sign
such a contract. Ever.)
> ..that you are only putting it out in public on the assumption that you
> can later remove it completely.
Sure, this isn't UselessNet or "slashdot". What else is presumed?
(oh, yeah.. that Grex is a 'freenet' and anyone can run net-toys
and 'bots.. Forgive me.)
> I don't agree with that, since it assumes that nobody is saving a copy
> on their own hard drive, etc.
Ummm.. That's just plain stupid..
1) This is NOT about some dufus doing file->save from IE or
netscape (except for some sort of review or advice, what sort
of TOTAL moron would BOTHER??);
FURTHER, once Grex is "cleaned" by the author, I don't see how
a lawyer OR COURT would see the REPOSTER as OTHER than the
"guilty-party" - Grex and the author DID THEIR JOB..
2) This *IS* about Grex, their users, and what they ARE and where
they are GOING.
Should Grex then too take full and total responsibility for twits
using a shell+lynx to download and then file-attach porn to
themselves of their cohorts?? MP3's? What??
OR, is Grex blameless in the stupidity of porn, email AND posting
copies? I rather think that Grex becomes completely BLAMELESS in
the case of some moron reposting an authors self-deleted material,
(but please: lets get some lawyer-type to spew..).
Which is it? Guilty, an accessory, or uninvolved? How in the Hell
can you expect to attract AND ENHANCE the "focal interest" of
"Grex is a BBS" if you act like Grex is a less flexible &
convenient form of UselessNET? What happened to all that dross
about "Grex is about conferencing.. Party is not what Grex is
about.. We don't have a lynx or ftp problem..???" Right, the
problem is that Grex, it's Borg and Members haven't a clue what
they want to BECOME, but they know what they WANT - and they are
"..willing to let someone ELSE die to to protect it!"
As I recently said directly to Russ:
"It was one thing when a BBS meant one or two of us at a time.
logging in and leaving notes TO EACH OTHER.. WE EXPECTED IT! It's
another thing to make available to the entire planet a system,
it's 'notes' and have no allowance whatsoever for self-censoring.
Even frickin' UselessNet posts are almost CERTAIN to die as unused
caches disappear." (Russ just nodded, smiled and changed the
subject ;-)
|