|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 120 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 62 of 120:
| 
Feb 1 13:58 UTC 2000 |
hmm...looks like !staff needs to be updated, it isnt reflecting most
of those folks as cfadmins
|
remmers
|
|
response 63 of 120:
|
Feb 1 18:15 UTC 2000 |
Re resp:58 - Since the proposal's been up for a week, I think it's
Paul's decision as to whether he wants the conference set up or not.
After this amount of discussion, our practice has been not to create a
conference until the proposer affirms that he or she wants it, and to
create it if that's the case.
|
spooked
|
|
response 64 of 120:
|
Feb 1 23:27 UTC 2000 |
To my knowledge staff aren't automatically cfadms, but I'm willing to help
out in that area if wanted.
|
prp
|
|
response 65 of 120:
|
Feb 3 22:34 UTC 2000 |
I'm still here. I'm just trying to read everything before commenting.
That takes time.
One think, the current state of things seems to have me as f-w. That's
ok, but keep in mind that I don't know what Grex policy is, nor would
I be likely to understand it easily. Given the way it is determined,
it is highly likely to be irrational.
Nobody has defended censoring spam.
Got to run.
|
remmers
|
|
response 66 of 120:
|
Feb 4 16:40 UTC 2000 |
I don't know how to respond to the irrationality issue, so I won't. As
far as fw policies go, I think they amount to "you can do what the
software permits you to do but not more". Perhaps there's an
expectation on the part of users that an fw will be sensitive to what
the participants in a conference want, but that's not a "policy" per se.
Anyway, if people are really dissatisfied with an fw's behavior, they
can always come to coop and propose a new conference on the same subject
matter but with a different fw. That's never happened, which suggests
that fw behavior isn't by and large a problem.
I kind of assumed you were interested in being FW of the conference
since you seem to have a clear vision of what you want it to be. But I
guess I was mistaken. In any case, the proposer doesn't have to be an
fw. But then there has to be some other volunteer.
|
prp
|
|
response 67 of 120:
|
Feb 4 20:04 UTC 2000 |
Ah, Anything the software allows. Now that's a policy I can understand
and comply with.
|
davel
|
|
response 68 of 120:
|
Feb 5 02:24 UTC 2000 |
People can also yell & scream a lot if they don't like a FWs style. This has
happened a couple of times, but yes, has really not been a problem.
(John, how would you go about proposing a new conference with the same subject
matter as agora?)
|
remmers
|
|
response 69 of 120:
|
Feb 7 11:17 UTC 2000 |
I think it's been done in this item...
|
i
|
|
response 70 of 120:
|
Feb 18 04:18 UTC 2000 |
Talking (via e-mail) with prp about setting up the decorum cf., i just
found out that prp was figuring on there being several conferences as
part of the decorum scheme - call 'em Active, Archive, Cutout, and
(maybe) Elsewhere. Admittedly, i haven't been following this discussion
very closely and am not much of a PicoSpan expert. I'm wondering whether
there are issues with creating multiple cf's (at the Pico-level at least)
from a single proposal, whether some clever scheme might accomplish prp's
goals without multiple cf's, etc. What do the experts think? (Could you
please explain the set-up, prp?)
|
remmers
|
|
response 71 of 120:
|
Feb 18 16:05 UTC 2000 |
I think we need more detail on what Paul has in mind.
|
prp
|
|
response 72 of 120:
|
Feb 18 21:01 UTC 2000 |
It is in there somewhere. Basically,
- Cutout has everything put in Decorum, but removed by the editor/f-w.
- Archive has everything else that was ever in Decorum.
- Active is another name for decorum.
- Elsewhere would have stuff linked from other conferneces. Making
it a bit like intro was designed to me. Note "maybe" in #70.
The plan is that Archive will eliminate the need for restarts and
Decorum01, decorum02, ...
At some point I suggested Agora as an alternative to Cutout. This got
no reaction at all.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 73 of 120:
|
Feb 18 23:15 UTC 2000 |
Well, all I was in favor of was trying the Decorum conference. as for
restarts, let's handle that when Decorum gets too bloated. Is Elsewhere a
second conference with prp as f-w that only contains items he wants to link
from other conferences? Or is it part of Decorum? since my belief is that
Decorum is yet another conference that has a very limited audience, I'd like
to wait until there are problems to solve, rather than creating FOUR new
conferences that I think have high potential to be "dead".
In friendly good humor,
The f-w of a "good idea" conference that died a-borning (PFC, if anyone
reacalls).
|
raven
|
|
response 74 of 120:
|
Feb 19 19:02 UTC 2000 |
I have to say that a conf predicated on the idea of the fw censoring
reponses *really* bothers me. I was very actively opposed to the
proposed sympathy conf for the same reason. Rather than rehashing
those arguments could someone just put a pointer to that conf/item?
Thanks... BTW I fw video, cyberpunk, and music so I have a wee bit of
expreience in these matters.
|
raven
|
|
response 75 of 120:
|
Feb 19 19:13 UTC 2000 |
To be a little more focused I think if the "cutout" conf were to be started
it would be a very bad precedent for Grex. I guess if prp wants to freeze
every item with a bad word in the general decorum conf he could do that
although it seems rather silly to me and it seems as though prp is missing
the point of Grex as a free speech oriented system. If prp doesn't like
the racousness of speech untamed why doesn't he just find another online
community? It's not like the world is lacking message boards these days...
|
aruba
|
|
response 76 of 120:
|
Feb 19 19:32 UTC 2000 |
Pointers to the sympathy discussion are in resp:37 of this item.
|
i
|
|
response 77 of 120:
|
Feb 19 22:17 UTC 2000 |
Grex is an open system, and decorum will be an open conference. I'd
guess that prp will let people know as they enter decorum (say, in the
login file) that it's not the usual mostly-anything-goes grex cf. If
decorum attracts people who like prp's active fw'ing, i'd say hurray.
We can't really forbid active fw'ing on grex anyway - if a few people
wanted such a cf, they could set it up outside of PicoSpan, Backtalk,
and /bbs pretty quickly.
|
raven
|
|
response 78 of 120:
|
Feb 19 23:25 UTC 2000 |
Hmmm to amplify on the last part of #77 perhaps a compramise could happen
if prp set up a web based message with a backtalk link to it on the
opening page saying something like try decorum a moderated discussion
forum? I suspect that most people interested in decorum would have
web access as I would guess that most of our dialin users are old
time Grexers who are more free speech orineted and wouldn't be intersted
in decorum anyway.
|
raven
|
|
response 79 of 120:
|
Feb 19 23:28 UTC 2000 |
err make that message board, something like wwwboard which is a cgi based
message board, do we have cgi/perl enabled on our web server here?
I have to say again that I would be very opposed to a moderated conf like the
proposed cut and paste. See coop6 item 96 for a dicussion of why free speech
is important on Grex.
|
raven
|
|
response 80 of 120:
|
Feb 19 23:51 UTC 2000 |
Re reading the coop6 discussion it seems like the idea provided there of twit
filters would work well in this situation as well. Perhaps we could put a two
sentence description of twit filters in the opening screen of Agora the first
time a newbie see it?
|
orinoco
|
|
response 81 of 120:
|
Feb 20 03:02 UTC 2000 |
Now that raises an interesting possibility. We've already seen the
existence of distributed party filters, where someone compiles a list of
"obnoxious users" and lets those who have similar taste also automatically
ignore people on the list.
There's no reason why the same thing couldn't be created for bbs. prp
could, for instance, set up three lists of response numbers: "fabulous"
for the ones he loves, "awful" for those he hates, and "worthwhile" for
those in between. Prp could then set up a program that would show just
those responses on a particular list. Running it on the "fabulous" list
would show me the equivalent of prp's "Active" conference; running it on
the "awful" list would show me the equivalent of prp's "Cutout." Any
other users who agreed with prp's taste could do the same.
If I'm understanding the proposal right, this would create a very similar
situation within Grex's policy as I understand it, and without the need to
create three or four new conferences. The downside would be the need to
write the program and keep the lists up to date -- certainly more work
than fairwitnessing a conference, at least at first.
|
raven
|
|
response 82 of 120:
|
Feb 20 06:10 UTC 2000 |
re #81 Well that's much more comprahensive (and interesting) than what I had
in mind. I was just thinking of something like a statement for a newbies
first entry to Agora something like: "Welcome to Agora and grex conferencing.
Because Grex is an open system you may find responses to some items in Agora
and other conferences distasteful. To filter out the responses of a user
who bothers you why not try our twit filter. To find out more about our
twit filter hit t and return? Press space to skip reading about the twit
filter. Something along these lines, ofcourse the wording would have to be
refined a lot.
|
mdw
|
|
response 83 of 120:
|
Feb 20 06:18 UTC 2000 |
This is pre-supposing 3 things: (1) there are lots of new people who
find some of the content of agora "offensive", (2) we want to keep thse
easily offended people on grex, and (3) someone wants to go to the work
of maintaining a twitlist that will please these people. I think all 3
suppositions are likely to be false.
|
raven
|
|
response 84 of 120:
|
Feb 20 06:50 UTC 2000 |
Well I was thinking of just point to the intrusctions of how to set up an
individual twit filter that filters out the users an individual desires to
filter, I agree a centralized filter list would be yucky.
I also agree about the lack of desire to have easily offended people on Grex.
I was just trying to come up with some sort of constructive solution to address
some of prps desires without burdening the taff with extra work and without
allowingfor fw censoring powers.
|
raven
|
|
response 85 of 120:
|
Feb 20 09:35 UTC 2000 |
What's going on here?
Ok: j decorum
Failed security checkpoin
I thought this conf was not authorized to be started. Is there a private
conf already?
|
carson
|
|
response 86 of 120:
|
Feb 20 13:05 UTC 2000 |
(pay more attention.) ;)
|