|
Grex > Coop9 > #27: Motion: To allow anonymous reading via Backtalk | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 624 responses total. |
srw
|
|
response 412 of 624:
| 
Jan 20 01:32 UTC 1997 |
So, at this point, I think we're waiting to see if Valerie wants us to vote on
the version that permits future confs to deny access to unregistered readers,
or the version that permits future confs that option.
|
richard
|
|
response 413 of 624:
|
Jan 20 01:39 UTC 1997 |
okay sorry rob, all I remembered was an earlier response where I said
you couldnt quit grex cold turkey and your exact words were "try me"
Sounds like an implication of leaving to me.
The wording should be that future confs do no have the option and also
that current confs, when they are re-started or when the original fair
witnesses leave their posts (whichever came first) the confs must at
that point conform to policy and be open. No FW should be empowered to
make a decision that is permanent, when they themselves may not always be in
the conf or as fw. This is a temporary decision. Lets reflect that.
Also set a point in time, two years or five years from enactment or
whatever, when ALL confs will be open (a deadline being a way of setting
a goal)
|
jenna
|
|
response 414 of 624:
|
Jan 20 02:08 UTC 1997 |
I am against not letting new conferences decide BUT i am EVEN
MORE opposed to setting a time at witch all conferences must switch over
I think that's bogus luring buillcrap, thank you kerouac.
|
valerie
|
|
response 415 of 624:
|
Jan 20 05:11 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
raven
|
|
response 416 of 624:
|
Jan 20 05:14 UTC 1997 |
re #407 No I think Grex should remain open access as is stated in the
by-laws. What we are doing in adding access by unregistered users is
adding *another* level of access above and beyond what Grex already has.
Obviously people already feel somewhat uncomfortable about this extra
level of access or these new users would be allowed to post as well as
read. I think it is fair and democratic to let conferences decide if
they are comfortable with unregistered users passing through their
conferences.
The idea that the compramise violates open access is a red herring. If
you have another substantive critique of the compramise I would like to
hear that critique. The only substantive critique of the compramsie I
have heard is that managing links between conferences will be difficult.
That's why I think a vote should be taken, and assuming the compramise
passes we should implement it, to see if linking is actually a problem.
If linking does turn out to be a problem we can always rescind the policy
and vote on a new policy.
|
dpc
|
|
response 417 of 624:
|
Jan 20 16:10 UTC 1997 |
My point in that fragment of Article 8 of the bylaws was that by
using the word "club" Grex has ruled out any argument that "open-
access" *necessarily* means that unregistered people have the right
to wander into the conferences. We can make any policy we want,
and are in the process of doing so.
And no, I am not arguing in favor of rewriting the bylaws.
I kind of enjoy the "newbie" flaor of the title of Article 8 being
"dissolvement" instead of "dissolution." 8-)
|
mary
|
|
response 418 of 624:
|
Jan 20 19:28 UTC 1997 |
Yeah, who wrote those Bylaws anyhow?
|
valerie
|
|
response 419 of 624:
|
Jan 20 22:36 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 420 of 624:
|
Jan 20 22:53 UTC 1997 |
Why not leave #3 up to the cfadmin on a case by case basis (with input
from the fw's) If the cfadmin makes the decision, the fw is off thehook
and cant take any flak. Andnobody could claim the fw owns the conf.
|
janc
|
|
response 421 of 624:
|
Jan 21 03:12 UTC 1997 |
I'd change "this rule is not enforced by the software..." to "Even if this
rule is not enforced by the software, fair witnesses should observe this
rule." All I want is that the rule doesn't seem to suggest that the software
*shouldn't* enforce this rule.
|
remmers
|
|
response 422 of 624:
|
Jan 21 13:09 UTC 1997 |
I've said it before but I'll say it again: Clause 3 of #419
doesn't look like a compromise to me; it looks like a
significant step backward for Grex.
Another issue I've raised but nobody has answered that I can
recall: If the motion as stated in #419 is defeated, where does
that leave things in terms of policy? The motion as stated has
the form "A and B and C". Logically, the negation of "A and B
and C" is "(not A) or (not B) or (not C)". So that would mean
that if the motion is defeated, it would be okay to do one or
two of A, B, C - as long as we don't do all three. In
particular, it would be okay to make all conferences open to
unregistered reading, as long as we don't give any choice in the
matter.
So since defeat of the motion would permit what I really want
anyway, I guess I've got another reason for voting against it.
|
janc
|
|
response 423 of 624:
|
Jan 21 14:46 UTC 1997 |
I would guess this works like when someone tries to pass a law through
congress and fails -- you end up with no new policy, not the negation of
the policy that didn't pass.
The status quo right now is no unregistered reading. Neither I nor any
other staff member is about to change that on our own initiative, so I
think if the new policy fails to pass, then the status quo will continue to
hold. Another resolution can always be introduced, of course.
I think this is a poor policy. Have you all thought of the implications?
- Fairwitnesses have to keep track of which conferences are open to
unregistered readers and which aren't.
- There will be controversies of fairwitnesses who "improperly linked"
items.
- Items that really naturally should be linked between two conferences A
and B suddenly can't be for a random ridiculous reason.
- What if conference A decides to be open and B closed, but they already
have items linked? Do those items have to be killed out of one
conference? Frozen? What?
- This kills the "intro" conference nearly dead. It currently consists of
temporary links to a good sampling of the conferences on Grex. With
this rule, it can only be a intro to half the conferences on Grex.
Will we create an "unreadable to unregistered users intro conference"
to survey the rest?
Putting a no-links rule right down the middle of Grex is awful. I don't like
it one bit.
|
valerie
|
|
response 424 of 624:
|
Jan 21 15:39 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
robh
|
|
response 425 of 624:
|
Jan 21 16:00 UTC 1997 |
Which would pretty much defeat the purpose of the whole thing.
At that point, a f-w could funtionally turn a registered-users-only
conference into an anonymous-accessible conference by linking all
the items over.
|
richard
|
|
response 426 of 624:
|
Jan 21 17:38 UTC 1997 |
why do things have to be resolved? this proposal is bending way over
backwards to satisfy virtually ALL the demands of those on the minority
side of the argument. There are those who feel just as strongly that all
confs should be open, b ut Valerie doesnt give them as much sonsdieration
because they arent threatening to leave. Since there isa much better
chance that a majority of voters would vote to simplylet all confs be
open, nwhy not let that be voted on as well>?
How does giving one side everything they want constitute a compromise?
|
jenna
|
|
response 427 of 624:
|
Jan 21 17:55 UTC 1997 |
let's see you could handle the problems dealing with
currently linked items by making a decision one way or the other on them
or askin for them to be deleted and restarted. As for future
links... that is a hard one, but you can always start a similiar item
in another conference
|
rcurl
|
|
response 428 of 624:
|
Jan 21 18:41 UTC 1997 |
I agree with remmers (#422) that clause #3 establishes a very bad new policy.
I agree with Jan that the failure of this motion to be adopted does not
create a new policy, and that then we revert to the status quo.
I disagree with Jan that the linking policy is a problem. Its purpose is
to simply remove this right for cfs that are not fully "public access". The
loss of these items to the intro cf is just "too bad". We cannot have
conferences half free and half.....not free. In any case, the inquiries in
cfs, about whether the users have an opinion on unregistered reading,
appears to me to favor unregistered reading. But then, I don't read the other
cfs - what's the count between the two choices?
|
richard
|
|
response 429 of 624:
|
Jan 21 23:11 UTC 1997 |
but rcurl, this policy would not remove the right of linking, but put all
fw's on an honor systemn, which is vague and which new fw's could end
up being ingorant of. Grex doesnt need lots of "hidden"rules that fw's have
to
abide by in order to be fw's.
Andalsorcurl,you have providedno reasoning why the fw should be logically the
one to make the decision. Is ityour opinion hat the fw owns the conf ahd
shoudl therefore hav more say than anyone else there?
|
richard
|
|
response 430 of 624:
|
Jan 22 02:58 UTC 1997 |
And most conferences have more than one FW...what if one fair witness wants
the conf
open and the other wants it closed? What if two want it closed and
one wants it open.
This proposal opens the way for a LOT of bickerering in a lot of confs...
I wouldnt want approval/opposition to thisproposal to suddenly be the
litmus test for fw'ship in any conf. And I wouldnt want this issue to be
looming over th e head of anyone who wants to be an fw. Such pressures will
diminish the numbers of people who even want to FW.
It is just impractical to have the fw or fw's making this decision.
|
ladymoon
|
|
response 431 of 624:
|
Jan 22 05:49 UTC 1997 |
This proposal does nothing for opening up bickering compared to your clueless
remarks, Richard/Kerouac.
Let me first of all say how full of shit you are when you state that I would
like the ability to kick people out of Sexuality II. Fuck you! Don't you know
that wanting to kick your inane and useless ass off the face of this planet
is a PERSONAL THING between you and I, or are you so totally braindead as to
think that I treat everyone the way I treat freaks like you?
This compromise is a true compromise- giving the non-backtalkers what we want
in whole would not have Backtalk be allowed on Grex AT ALL. Now, if that is
what the compromise stated, then yes, it wouldn't be a compromise.
It doesn't say that.
Try again Richard. Or, better yet, don't. Just shut the fuck up and unplug
the life-support someone put your brain on years ago.
The preceding was riddled with ad hominems, and was highly incendiary. The
writer of it knows this, and intended it to be that way, so there's no use
in pointing it out to her. Have a nice evening.
|
srw
|
|
response 432 of 624:
|
Jan 22 08:20 UTC 1997 |
I completely agree that clause three is bad policy.
I agree with Jan that there are problems with clause two, but if we never get
any new confs that are closed to unregistered users, then I suspect we will
only ever have just the two, sexuality and poetry. (Did I miss one?)
Robh will have to lay off of linking from those two into intro, and
that is a shame, but I'd rather keep those conferencers than lose them
over refusing to allow them to keep their conferences closed to unregistered.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 433 of 624:
|
Jan 22 08:20 UTC 1997 |
ladymoon slipped in.....
|
rcurl
|
|
response 434 of 624:
|
Jan 22 08:31 UTC 1997 |
srw too.....
I have the impression that most want to chagne clause three, but would support
the rest of the motion. If valerie declines to change clause three, I would
still vote for the motion, but then I would enter a new vote on amending
clause three to state what I originally proposed for it. (This is a way to
handle dealing with three separate clauses without voting on each separately,
though that is also a possibility).
|
remmers
|
|
response 435 of 624:
|
Jan 22 12:34 UTC 1997 |
[For handy reference: The clauses being referred to are listed
in response #419. To view them, type 'only 419' at the respond-
or-pass prompt (or the corresponding thing if you're here via
backtalk).]
If clause 3 is deleted, clause 1 needs to be revised to make it
clear that it applies to existing conferences only.
I tend to agree that clause 2 isn't a big problem if clause 3
goes.
|
valerie
|
|
response 436 of 624:
|
Jan 22 14:33 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|