response 7 of 108:

Jan 12 18:28 UTC 2004

Yes, a later vote will override the current one.  I'd prefer, though, that
the third exception not be included: I think it _encourages_ item deletion,
when, from what I've seen to date, the sense of the community is to
_dis_courage such deletions.

response 9 of 108:

Jan 12 18:31 UTC 2004

I believe the Debate Team offers a special medal for that.

response 11 of 108:

Jan 12 20:18 UTC 2004

Why not simply say, "fair witnesses shall not delete items from
conferences period.  the "kill" command shall be de-permitted for fw's.
Henceforth, only the board's CfAdmin shall have the power to remove items.
And Cfadmin shall only remove items in accordance to staff policy and not
at the request of any individual user"

I don't think every conference need have separate rules, as Gull's
proposal allows for.  The conferencing environment as a whole is what is
important here.  There ought to be consistency in conference rules for all
conferences.  And I don't think fairwitnesses need the "kill" command, not
so long as they can freeze or retire items.

response 13 of 108:

Jan 12 22:55 UTC 2004

Re resp:11: I disagree.  For one thing, I think there are conferences
where the 'kill' command makes sense -- for example, classified, where
it makes no sense to keep really old items around.  Also, there's no
consistency in conference rules as it is -- some roll over on a regular
basis, some never do, some do irregularly.  I'm willing to let
fairwitnesses manage conferences in their own style as long as everyone
knows what the rules are.  I see no reason to tie their hands.

If you want to post another initiative to depermit the kill command for
fairwitnesses, feel free.  But I'm not going to change this proposal to
include that.  I don't feel it's reasonable.

response 15 of 108:

Jan 13 21:12 UTC 2004

I'd love to discuss this proposal but I don't think there has been enough
focus on the existing policies to make such recommendations.

response 17 of 108:

Jan 14 16:45 UTC 2004

aruba, I would be curious as to *how* you find the proposal too rigid, given
the 2 remaining exceptions.

response 19 of 108:

Jan 14 17:16 UTC 2004

(resp:12 sums it up.  resp:16 appears to respond to resp:14 and,
IMO,  is a correct assessment of a failing of the proposal.)

[aruba slipped]

response 21 of 108:

Jan 14 20:14 UTC 2004

(that's usually been the policy.  gull's proposal would eliminate that 
option.  to me, that's a reason to vote "no.")

response 23 of 108:

Jan 15 00:42 UTC 2004

Gull's policy would require that every single conference have the exception
you state poste somewhere - otherwise someone could fill up the conference
and the fairwitness would have no recourse.

response 25 of 108:

Jan 15 05:01 UTC 2004

I think what is REALLY an invitation to spamming is valerie's mass scribbling
program.  That encourages people to trash conferences with hundreds of abusive
posts because they know that at any one time, they can delete all posts with
one click. When you could only scribble one post at a time, it was too time
consumming to take out everything you posted if you had hundreds of posts.
That program should be de-permitted because allowing mass scribbling encourage
people to think they can raise holy hell here and not be held accountable.

response 27 of 108:

Jan 15 06:41 UTC 2004

Re#25 Not practical as long as scribble capability exists in picospan.
Ignoring the fact that this particular "scribble" has been openly
available and (presumably) copied by any number of people in recent days,
it's not at all hard to rewrite your own version from scratch.

Variations of the "scribble" program have surfaced many times on m-net,
arbornet, The Well, The River and grex over the years.