response 51 of 624:

Dec 26 00:27 UTC 1996

I dunno, I'd sure expect some of the "adult links" pages to put
a pointer to the Sex conf's main page, if it were accessible.

(I don't know why I'm bothering to argue this, I know I'm going
to get steamrollered anyway...)

response 53 of 624:

Dec 26 04:36 UTC 1996

My comment waaaaay back there was not intended as a personal threat.
I am opposed to this motion for two reasons:
(1) It may create unpleasant legal ramifications for Grex. A copyright mawsuit
that Grex wins and doesn't have to pay for (in the long run) is still a
copyright lawsuit that Grex doesn't have the money to fight up front. and
there *is* a potential lawsuit here, as incredulous as Jan C and others have
appeared in the past. Do we really want a lawsuit over a convenience for a
bunch of Websurfers, 99% of whom will surf on anyway?
(2) It will create what is to me a hostile environment. I will cease to wish
to continue being a user of Grex. I have threatened as much in the past. A
motion which loses currently active Grex users (I have knowledge of at least
one other person who will not only leave Grex, but will delete ALL of her
items and MAY proceed with a lawsuit) in an attempt to eke out new users seems
foolhardy to me.  As they say, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."

We've been through the discussion of the difference between anonymous and
unverified users of Grex (on the one hand) and anonymous users via Backtalk.
I'm truly sorry that people can't seem to see the difference, but I do feel
there is one, and I will act on this feeling (yes, prejudiced bias against
Websters) (heh, Websters, I like that one).

response 55 of 624:

Dec 26 05:49 UTC 1996

> I won't presume to answer fo selena, but my own opinion:
> I don't like the idea of hordes of invisible users reading
> the conferences.  
> 

Isn't that the way it is now, Rob?  Isn't that exactly what 
we're trying to do here?  Aren't we trying to get as many 
people as possible to derive benefit from our conferences?  
Are you saying that you don't want growth of any kind?  Are 
you saying that you just don't want any web-based growth?  
Are you saying that we shouldn't allow invisible users here 
anymore?  

> Especially conferences with sensitive material, like 
> Sexuality and Recovery.  

This confuses me.  People (perhaps not including you) have 
talked about "intended audiences", and how people who 
aren't in an "intended audience" shouldn't have access to 
certain content here.  I'd have to say that everyone who 
thinks that when they post a response to a conference on 
Grex assumes less of an audience than the entire planet is 
sadly mistaken.  I've read posts here dating from 1992 -- 
from people who don't use this system anymore -- from 
people who don't even want to be associated with this 
system anymore -- even from people who are no longer alive.  
In the sexuality conference, I've read all sorts of 
intimate details of some people's lives years after they've 
left the system.  I certainly wasn't part of their intended 
audience.  What people say here on Grex is more public 
domain than if they had shouted it from a roof-top in Times 
Square.  

> If registration is so trivial, then make them do it.  What 
> harm is there in making people register, Mike?  What harm?
> 

Good debating tactic -- turning the question back on me.  I 
guess I come on a little strong here . . . like perhaps I 
want to steamroll you.  However, that is not the case.  If 
you can make me understand what bad things will happen if we 
allow "anonymous" reading via Backtalk, I certainly won't 
vote the wrong way.  But you've got to make me understand -- 
you can't just throw up your hands and say that I just don't 
get it -- that I'm the enemy.  And I think this applies for 
most everyone here.  No one's out to get anyone.  No one's 
out to steamroll anything.  It's just that right now we think 
allowing "anonymous" reading via Backtalk is in Grex's best 
interests.

And to answer your question, I don't think that any great 
harm will come to Grex if we don't allow "anonymous" reading
via Backtalk.  I do think that Grex will be a little poorer
in that we'll have fewer conference participants and a higher
emailer to conferencer ratio than otherwise, but that's just 
the way Grex is right now, and we're obviously surviving.
However, it's not fear of harm that causes me to desire this
change.  It's because I think we can make Grex a better place.
I think that part of the purpose of Grex is to spread online 
conferencing to as many people as possible.  I think that by
allowing people to read our conferences "anonymously" is the 
best sort of advertisement we could hope for.  People who are
attracted to the Grexian flavour of online conferencing will 
be drawn by it, while people who aren't, won't bother to take 
out accounts.  And if hoards of people feel more comfortable 
reading the Sexuality conference without having accounts, I 
think that is terrific.  I would love to see Grex get flooded
by *conferencing* for a change.  We should be proud of our 
conferences, not embarrassed.  Our conferences are *us*.  

I think I'll quit for now, before I'm percieved to be rambling.
Or maybe it's too late.  8^)

response 57 of 624:

Dec 26 07:45 UTC 1996

But to clarify on one point (didn't really think I'd be able
to stay out of it, eh?), I don't think that anyone on Grex is
targetting me personally.  I just ended up on the wrong side
of the line for this topic.

response 59 of 624:

Dec 26 13:37 UTC 1996

Well, I guess we differ in our basic premises then, because what
you consider to be a design flaw, I don't.

response 61 of 624:

Dec 26 21:38 UTC 1996

I agree.  Let's just have a vote.  Both sides have a pertinent argument, 
so now I guess it isn't a matter of "which choice is better," but rather 
how many people prefer each choice.

response 63 of 624:

Dec 27 02:31 UTC 1996

$18 gets anyone the right to vote, even on current ballot proposals.

brighn - My statement about "let's just vote on this" was rhetorical,
the by-laws specify that at least two weeks must pass between the proposal
of the amendment and the beginning of the voting period.  Once the two
weeks is up, I'm sure that a final version will go to a vote, whether
I like it or not.

response 65 of 624:

Dec 27 07:41 UTC 1996

> If we ran a gun production company that had two basic models, a pistol
 > and a machine gun, and the pistol currently had a design flaw that  >
caused the pistol to occasionally blow up in the users hand, would the 
> sale of said pistol justify incorporating the same design flaw into  >
the machine gun? >  > I think people who tell me that my argumentation
is trivial because we  > already allow anonymous reads at the telnet and
dialin levels fail to  > remember that I consider anonymous reads *at
any level* to be a  > problem. Just because we have them doesn't justify
expanding them. > 

Considering what I know about you, Brighn, I don't think I understand
what you are saying here.  What you say above seems to indicate that 
you think Selena shouldn't be able to read the conferences, which seems
very out of character for you.  Although Selena is completely anonymous 
to this community, Grex has benefited greatly by allowing her to read
the conferences, since she eventually decided the join the community by 
posting very colorful responses.  

I view our present system of allowing completely anonymous access to 
our conferences as a resounding success.  

> My problems regard quntity and quality. 
> 

Quality?  Do you think that the quality of our items will lessen if 
read by people who don't have Grex accounts?  By what mechanism can 
that happen?  

And quantity?  Haven't we been trying for years to tilt the balance
of Grex back towards the conferences?  Isn't it our goal to get as 
many people as possible involved in online conferencing here, since
online conferencing is such a good thing?  Or perhaps, Brighn, you 
would like to see the conferences on Grex restricted to just your 
friends?  

> A different sort of user Websurfs than Netsurfs. A different sort of 
> user who Websurfs would use anonymous reads than hnadle-based reads. 
> 

Yeah?  What is a Websurfer like?  How are Websurfers different than 
Netsurfers?  Are websurfers harmful in some way that netsurfers are 
not?  Do you think that some websurfers may harm you if they can read
items on Grex without having accounts?  Or perhaps some websurfers 
may hurt Grex if they read items without having accounts?  In what 
way do you think they will accomplish this?

> And at any rate many, many, many, many more users Websurf than 
> Netsurf.
> 

Exactly.  In fact, we may be able to significantly increase our 
conferencing community by showing people what we are about before 
they take the time to create an account.  If you and I are correct, 
Brighn, then we may end up with many more members, too, since a 
rather high percentage of conference-goers become members at some 
time or another.  

> We have a malfunctioning pistol and a functional machine gun. Just 
> because we refuse to fix the pistol doesn't mean we should break the 
> machine gun.
> 

Are you saying that instead of allowing anonymous reads with Backtalk, 
we should start verifying all of our users before they can use the 
conferences?  I like it that people can join our community to the 
extent that they desire, and at the rate they desire.  I just hope 
that we can accomidate a more gradual initiation.  

> Chaging the way the things i put here cnbe accessed it 
> questionably copyrioght violation. I either want ALL of my items
> deleted (and YOU to give me a disk with them downloaded onto it)
> as well as all items I've ever responded to, or 10$ for
> each item i've respoonded or entered as a publication fee.
>  

Nah . . . *you* put those responses there for everyone to access, 
and *you* are free to remove those responses at any time, using 
the scribble command, although that will make Grex's heritage just 
a little bit poorer.  And of course no one on Grex will copy all 
of your responses to disk and send them to you, just because you 
say you want it done.  That's your responsibility.  Of course, I 
would be more than willing to do that for 10$ per item.  8^)

I guess this is the way I see it:

Grex is like a bulletin board.  People tack little messages on 
the bulletin board because they want many others to see them.  If
access to that bulletin board is suddently changed so that many 
people can see the messages on it, few would ever be upset, as 
people posted their messages so that the public could view them.  
The more people view their messages, the better!  And people who 
didn't like having such a public exposure to their messages would 
never ask the owner of the bulletin board to remove the messages 
for them, or to restrict access to the bulletin board.  And they 
certainly wouldn't threaten to sue the owner of the bulletin 
board for copyright infringement.  They would simply remove their 
messages if they didn't want them to be seen.  Maybe, if they only 
wanted a small group of people to see their messages, they would 
send their messages out in private mailings, or something similar 
so that they could better control access to their messages, for it 
is impossible to control who views messages posted to a bulletin 
board.  

response 67 of 624:

Dec 27 15:27 UTC 1996

Bullshit, Mary. I choose to post them to Grex, not the whole
Internet, not the whole Web. I thought I made that PERFECTLY clear. Nobody
coerrced me, you're right. But things were different then...
I want people who care enough about Grex to put in the extremely
small amount of effort required to make a login. And if I have to delete
everything, I will, when you do this. I'm perfectly happy with it being
on Grex, as Grex now stands.

response 69 of 624:

Dec 27 15:51 UTC 1996

I tried to abort that response, because it essentially
said nothing new, but entered it instead.

So you get to read part of it anyhow.  What a treat. ;-)

response 71 of 624:

Dec 27 17:17 UTC 1996

Without meaning to suggest in the slightest that they aren't or that I don't
want to hear their arguments here, I'd like to point out that if Jenna and
others would be interested in a system where they would fall nearer the
mainstream of thought, they should check out "river.org".  It charges a
monthly fee, but is a smaller and more controled community.  Seems like about
half the users there are writers.

Of course, I'd much rather that see you find yourself comfortable enough to
stay here, since your imput is valued.

I guess there are two schools of thought here.  This discussion has been
confused by the word "anonymity" which really isn't the issue at all.  It
has almost nothing to do with "anonymity."  I think the two stances are like
this:

  - An on-line community requires a degree of closure  to thrive.  You can't
    have a community in the aisle of a shopping mall.  Some kind of barriers,
    of in Marcus's terminology, "people filters," are needed to keep the
    sense of community from being trampled by mobs of idle passers-by.  In
    Grex's case, this has historically been done by having a rather involved
    newuser program and a generally obtuse and obscure interface.  In the
    case of a place like "The River" it is done by charging a fee.  Grex
    shouldn't knock all its walls down, because it will then just disappear
    into the buzz of the internet.

  - We want Grex to be as open and accessible to all sorts of people with all
    sorts of viewpoints and modes of thought.  "People filters" are only good
    if they filter out people we really don't want to have here (e.g., those
    people whose only idea of fun is seeing how much they can disrupt any and
    all constructive activity).  Lots of fascinating and intelligent people
    who would be great to have here are filtered out by having a slow and
    obtuse computer system.  Our goal should be to make Grex easier to use
    for a more diverse set of people.  Diversity is the greatest possible
    strength for an on-line commuity, though it can be a source of stress.
    Conferencing will always have a basic "people filter" that party does
    not have -- to participate in a conference takes a dedicated daily effort
    over many days to follow the conversations and get to know the people.
    That is all the filter you need.  Conferences are ultimately boring if
    you don't invest your time and self in them.

I personally believe strongly in pushing for greater and greater ease of use.
That's why I wrote webnewuser and backtalk.  I'd really rather see as many
user-interface barriers to using Grex fall as possible.

response 73 of 624:

Dec 27 17:35 UTC 1996

With all due respect Mary, I'm totally with Jenna about the poetry thing. I
write poetry myself, and post a lot of it here on grex in the poetry conf.
There are a lot of greedy ppl out there who would love to find un-copywrited
poetry on the net and publish it as their own work. Maybe you don't fully
understand what our poetry means to us. It comes from out heart and our soul,
it is who we are, and if someone copies it and publishes it under their name,
they have not only claimed our words, but our feelings as well. They have
violated our soul, crazy as that sounds.

Sure, we can't be assured that ppl who have logins on grex won't do this, but
ppl who use grex are only a small slice of teh internet community. We are now,
with this motion, opening in up to teh entire PLANET in one swipe. do this,
and we would either have to delete every item of our poetry, and never enter
again, or get a copy-right for every poem we write to assure they wont' be
copied. Surely you can't expect us to do this. I and Jenna speak not only for
ourselves, but the many others who have poured their heart and soul into that
conference over the last cojple years...and also to those who are no longer
here to deffend their work....