|
Grex > Coop6 > #96: A New Sympathy; I need help. | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 127 responses total. |
jep
|
|
response 75 of 127:
| 
Feb 11 20:30 UTC 1995 |
Marcus, I didn't know what implementation was used to disable setuid
files on /home. I set "nrformat" 4700 just to show it could be done, not
for any functional purpose. I set it to 4755 first, then changed it
because I didn't want people experimenting with a setuid script in my name
to see if they could break into my account.
Enough of the mild technical stuff. Sidhe wants to be able to censor
as a fw in a single conference. It's prevented in the official conferencing
system, and that works out well, but there's no technical reason why he
can't set up his own Picospan or Picospan clone for a conference that
exists outside the rules. However anyone feels about it, is there an
official or social convention preventing him from doing that if he wants
to? If he sets it up, is someone going to remove it somehow?
How far does your distaste extend for someone else censoring in a
conference? Is *this* the right time for enforcing your preferences, and
dropping the Grex trademark openness in letting people do what they want?
Here I am messing with Grex policy, which I *used* to try not to do,
and militantly refused in one or two cases. Oh, well. I perceive a shift
from Grex openness. I oppose it because that openness is what I find so
appealing about Grex.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 76 of 127:
|
Feb 12 02:51 UTC 1995 |
Raven, I don't want to be the one deciding what does and doesn't get
cut, that is why I am not using your sympthy mail-account idea. Your
ascertations that all this can be done on a home machine is also grossly
incorrect. *I* am not capable of tinkering around like that, with my
terminal, which means that there may be more who also lack these means.
I do not need to be extremely vigilant, given my proposed system
of user-judgement.. if there is a problem, they come to me with it. I thus
do not have to be scanning my cf every hour, merely checking my mail
frequently. I propose merely to give people who are hurting a little chunk
of cyberspace that is devoted to their healing and comfort. If they'd be
comfortable with what they recieved, then I'd never have to cut anything.
Carson.. "twit" filter? Honestly, I've heard of it, but I always
thought it was merely some cyberslang for rolling with a punch, and ignoring
it. I never knew that there was actually such a feature!
That indeed, might work.. hmm.. Raven, thanks to my lousy connection
this evening, I didn't get to read whether or not you had a problem with
the "twit" filter idea.. do you?
<Yes, sidhe actually values your input.. he just wishes you'd be a bit more
civil!>
|
carson
|
|
response 77 of 127:
|
Feb 12 07:38 UTC 1995 |
sidhe, I will send you mail about the twit filter to avoid using any
public examples. I hope that it's a step in the right direction. I've
found myself using it again after going nearly an entire year without
it. It's a good way of ignoring the sort of users/responses that are
without fail disagreeable until such a time that one can deal with
such... oh, can't think of a nice word, and I'm trying *so* hard to
be nice now!
|
raven
|
|
response 78 of 127:
|
Feb 12 09:03 UTC 1995 |
I think it will be a sad day if the FW of any conf gets golbal twit
filtering capacity. I FW a conf myself (cyberpunk) and I value the responses
of *all* people to items in the conf. I can't imagine a terminal that doesn't
have some sort of copy command that would in turn allow text to be edited
in Pico. Ofcourse I haven't used a harware terminal in years, would someone
care to fill me in on what they can do with text?
Actualy in some ways a twit filter bothers me more because instead
of censoring a single response it *SILENCES* all the persons responses who
are named it's list. Making someone electronicaly disapear in such a fashion
truely reminds of the people who "disapeared" in 1984. It also reminds me
of what feminist historians say happen to women who try to speak, they are
silenced. If individuals want to twit filter that bother me less because
there is still a public record of the response. I would still even find a
little sad if private twit filtering became a common practice. I can
*maybe* see the need for a twit filter on usenet, but the idea that people
feel they need here on my home in cyberspace is sad to me.
|
carson
|
|
response 79 of 127:
|
Feb 12 09:09 UTC 1995 |
raven, I think I understand your feelings, and I agree that it is sad.
however, you can take a quick look at the sexuality conference for the
type of people that sidhe is likely to cater to with sympathy, whether
he likes it or not.
I hadn't meant to imply that twitting was doable by the FW, BTW; it's
not, but I thought/think sidhe might consider it an option when responding
to individual user complaints.
|
raven
|
|
response 80 of 127:
|
Feb 12 09:27 UTC 1995 |
You mean telling the people who have complaints how to set up their
own twit filter. Hmmmm that's agreeable to me, as long as it leaves the
response public in the item which is how a twit filter works, right?
I still think it would be sad it twit filtering becomes a common
practice on Grex, but private twit filtering doesn't really both me ethicaly
the way censoring or global twit filtering would. Thanx for the creative
suggestion carson :-). This way it could also be a regular picospan conf,
right. No hastle, less resources used, I like it...
Sorry about the lax grammer on # 78 it's late...
|
remmers
|
|
response 81 of 127:
|
Feb 12 12:38 UTC 1995 |
If sidhe can find the labor to set up a conference the way he wants in
his home directory, that's fine with me. There could be ways to do it
that don't require a suid program.
I've seen previous attempts (on other systems) to run conferences the
way he wants to run this one backfire and fail, and it's my personal
opinion that this one would too, but I've been wrong about other
things, so I could be wrong here. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be
allowed to try it. The experiment would reveal more than all of the
speculative philosophical and polemical discussion that's going on in
this item.
The main obstacle right now is finding someone with the necessary
technical expertise who can figure out a way to set it up and is
willing to put in the time and effort to implement it.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 82 of 127:
|
Feb 12 17:57 UTC 1995 |
?1;0c Well, raven, I don't want to be a picospan cf, because I don't want
to have my items linkable to other cf's. Especially if you are FW-ing a
different cf.. with as spiteful as you've been, I wouldn't trust you to
not pull a prank like that. Why, indeed, are you so up in arms over this,
raven? I just don't see the sense in it.
Carson, I wouldn't censor anything I've yet to see in sexuality. The
only way I'd cut anything from anywhere is if I were *asked* to by the
owner of the item. Thats all. You all seem to be missing that point, somewhere.
Remmers, I appreciate your thoughts on letting me go forward with
this, but I don't particularly like the way it makes me feel doomed from the
start. You sya that censored cf's have always failed. Have they ever had
the condition I give above <i.e., each item has an owner, and only if that
owner explicitly requests it, do I cut anything>? And, I also now have to be
wary of another FW, for the love of goodness, who has threatened to come in,
and mess with some innocent bystander's life, just to test out his points!
I, as a fair-wittness previous to this, find the notion of going and ruining
another cf, nt under my control ethically reprehensible!
It was a given, when I entered this item, that I could go ahead with
this project. Valerie had told me, in no uncertain terms, that I could do this.
I have found, throught the course of this item, that, indeed, it is NOT
technically impossible, and that no one has given me a definitive answer of
"NO, you cannot do this", who is on staff. My last definite permission on
this was "Go ahead", so if this is to be cancelled, I'd better hear a
definite "NO" from staff, or I'm going to begin work. I've had it up to
here with the back-and-forthing, and I really don't see what anything else
will accomplish, as we are only covering turf that we've been over several
times.
So, what is it? YES or NO? No inbetweens allowed, here, as I need
to know NOW. <I thought I knew when this item was placed, and the delay is
growing intolerable. If I cannot do this, then have the guts to say so.>
|
ajax
|
|
response 83 of 127:
|
Feb 12 18:04 UTC 1995 |
Just to clarify, I *think* sidhe's question should be interpreted as whether
he can set up his own cf in his own directory, requiring no help from staff.
|
aaron
|
|
response 84 of 127:
|
Feb 12 18:27 UTC 1995 |
re way back: Are the "in peoples' directories" copies of Yapp licensed?
|
steve
|
|
response 85 of 127:
|
Feb 12 20:42 UTC 1995 |
Good question. I agree with John. Sidhe should find someone to help
him install YAPP (or whatever system he chooses) and take care of whatever
licensing things that have to be done.
|
aruba
|
|
response 86 of 127:
|
Feb 12 22:24 UTC 1995 |
I started writing this when I was only halfway through the item, so some of
it has been said already. But I want to say it anyway.
I'd like to address my remarks to Christopher, and what he plans to do,
rather than debate what Grex should do for him.
Christopher, I don't think censorship is going to work here. For starters,
as Marcus said in #67, if someone puts a rude note in my box, and I read it,
the damage is done. Deleting it isn't going to take away the hurt. It also
won't discourage the rude person from acting again; more than likely he'd be
pleased as punch to have gotten a reaction. So your censorship won't be
effective at keeping Sympathy a safe place.
UNLESS what you plan to do is keep certain users from *ever entering
anything at all* in the conference (a "global twit filter"). If that's your
intention (and I don't know whether YAPP, or whatever you use, will let you do
that), we're talking about a whole different animal. I'd suggest that
advising boxholders how to set up a personal twit filter might be more
effective, and it amounts to the same thing, from their perspective. I think
the way to deal with rudeness, the ONLY way, is to ignore it.
I find the label of "caretaker" quite patronizing. People are not plants,
and generally don't enjoy (or gain from) being treated as such. This makes me
think that what you're talking about here is not a conference, but a ministry,
(or nursery?) and that makes me uneasy.
I write this as someone who has at times needed, received, and benefitted
from a great deal of sympathy. I know that it is valuable to have a safe
place to go. Ultimately, though, I value truth, and I don't think that
denying what has happened does anything but harm. So if I held a sympathy box
in your conference, I don't think censoring it would help me nearly as much as
it would hurt me.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 87 of 127:
|
Feb 12 23:19 UTC 1995 |
The censoring would be up to you. As such, you could keep what you
wanted, and merely have me "take out the trash". The whole point is that
the box should be as the person who owns it wants it to be. If this could
be accomplished by twit filter, then fine. I merely wanted the control to
not necessarily be DIRECTLY under their power, so I'd have a chance to
suggest alternatives, such as mail, response, or other non-cenoring
concepts. In the end, though, if they felt that they wanted the remark
gone, it would be gone. Simple enough, and, I believe, fair. As to if it
will work or not, NO ONE will know, unless it is tried.
|
steve
|
|
response 88 of 127:
|
Feb 13 04:15 UTC 1995 |
Christopher, why don't you just try this conference without having
the ability to censor? You're public stance advocating that you need
it before having ever tried it has hurt your cause, I think. Grex
hasn't had much need for this ability in the past, and it doesn't show
any great need now, that I am aware of.
I think it is fair to say that most people here have either negative
feelings about it, or are hovering near neutral. Why not try it out?
|
aruba
|
|
response 89 of 127:
|
Feb 13 05:17 UTC 1995 |
I'm with STeve. If you're only ever going to censor things so that
boxholders don't have to see them, then your censorship will accomplish
nothing that a twit filter couldn't - in fact it won't do as much. If what
the boxholder wants is day to day support, with no possiblity that anyone
will be rude, well, your censorship (as you describe it) can't possibly
provide that. And raven is absolutely right that if what a boxholder is
after is a set of supportive items they can refer back to, then the best
way for them to get that is to dump the item to a file and edit it
(perhaps you could include instructions on how to do that in the
conference).
As to items being linked elsewhere, I have never seen this done except
by request. Marcus et.al., is there any way to prevent an item from being
linked elsewhere? It has always seemed to me that fair witnesses in
general hold to a higher standard than the rest of us, though I don't
know if there's any official Grex policy saying that they should. I would
be rather annoyed with any fairwitness who linked anything against the
will of the participants; I would think that was an abuse of power.
|
raven
|
|
response 90 of 127:
|
Feb 13 06:42 UTC 1995 |
First off I would like to thank Katie for linking this to Agora, and
Steve and Mark for clearly and rationaly stating what is in essence my position
which I sometimes stated unclearly and irrationaly.
I also haveo to say to sidhe that for someone who wants to be
"caretaker" for a sympathy conf, you haven't shown much sympathy for my
*feelings*
about this issue.
|
mdw
|
|
response 91 of 127:
|
Feb 13 07:25 UTC 1995 |
All that's needed to make items unlinkable is to put the conference on a
different partition. Linked items in PicoSpan are hard links; they
can't cross disk partitions.
|
steve
|
|
response 92 of 127:
|
Feb 13 17:24 UTC 1995 |
And I think we'd readily agree to putting this one conference in
a different place to accomplish that. That sounds entirely reasonable
to me, to make it un-linkable.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 93 of 127:
|
Feb 13 17:56 UTC 1995 |
Then perhaps it is tryable.
I do have my *severe* reservations regarding this, as you would have
it, but, alas, if you do not have it your way, you apparently will not have
it. I do not think that scrapping the idea because of the political hulla-
baloo is desireable, as then there is no chance of any benefit.
Raven, as I stated before, this is NOT sympathy, and if you give me
fire here, then you shall recieve it right back. I have no need to show
others coutesy, if they REPEATEDLY give me nothing but grief. You, my
friend, have less an excuse than I, for it was not I who attacked you,
to begin with. Enough of this, though, as I have already stated my
compromise. I honestly hope to not see you in my cf, unless you actually
decide on behaving yourself.
<And people wondered why I am worried>
So, go ahead and destroy the linkable Sympathy, and set up the
unlinkable one. I will persevere to make it as nice a place as possible,
and if I have any problems, I will come to staff for resolution.
You know, it's funny, but I had already proposed this setup back
in the cf-proposal item..
|
ajax
|
|
response 94 of 127:
|
Feb 13 19:47 UTC 1995 |
Christopher, nobody has yet answered your "YES or NO" question in #82, but
my impression is that folks think "YES," you could set up something in your
own account if it didn't take staff help. I don't think you're optionless;
Marcus and STeve were suggesting yet another option. If you prefer it to
the hassle of creating your own cf system, great, but it's your choice.
|
raven
|
|
response 95 of 127:
|
Feb 13 20:59 UTC 1995 |
I certainly have no problem with a standard pico conference being set
up on a different disk partition so items can't be linked. Instructions
for people setting up individual twit filters also sounds OK. The main
thing is that the precedent of FW censorship is avoided on Grex.
Sidhe don't worry I have *no* intention of joining your conf. I think
to be fair though I have to state that I have ststed many creative compramises
tp resolving this situation, and *you* are the one who has been unwilling
to change up until # 93.
|
selena
|
|
response 96 of 127:
|
Feb 13 22:00 UTC 1995 |
Oh, raven, go stuff it! Your "suggestions" weren't usable 'cause of the
amount of spite and general vinegar you put in them! It seems that sidhe
wouldn't have minded your ideas, if you'd said them at all nicely, like mdw
and steve did! I know, 'cause I just read through this entire item, and
you've been a real antagonistic dick all through it! Try actually talking
to people, instead of bullying them, and trying the scare-tactic to death,
and maybe you'll be listened to! "Til then, expect to be treated pretty
coldly!
Sidhe, I gotta say that I think your idea should be let alone.
I don't know if I like the idea of a centralized censor option, but I
can't see why everyone's so apeshit over it. Let the man have a chance, for
gods' sake! <Bloody closed-minded, sure-we'll-call-it-an-open-system-so-
long-as-you-do-it-our-way idgits!>
Gods, this place gets me sometimes!
|
wind
|
|
response 97 of 127:
|
Feb 13 23:42 UTC 1995 |
Then leave again. ;)
|
gerund
|
|
response 98 of 127:
|
Feb 14 00:14 UTC 1995 |
Ok, where did I leave that twit filter?
|
selena
|
|
response 99 of 127:
|
Feb 14 02:54 UTC 1995 |
For me, or wind?
|