|
Grex > Coop13 > #82: Member proposal restricting staff's ability to delete conference items. |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 108 responses total. |
gelinas
|
|
response 8 of 108:
| 
Jan 12 18:30 UTC 2004 |
(I'm so persuasive, gull removed the clause before he could read my
argument. :)
|
jp2
|
|
response 9 of 108:
|
Jan 12 18:31 UTC 2004 |
I believe the Debate Team offers a special medal for that.
|
gull
|
|
response 10 of 108:
|
Jan 12 19:31 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:7: Yeah, I anticipated that objection. I'm not sure if I agree
with it, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to want to derail the
discussion about the proposal in general.
|
richard
|
|
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.
|
aruba
|
|
response 12 of 108:
|
Jan 12 21:42 UTC 2004 |
I think this proposal would encourage a lot of spamming of Grex's
conferences. If I were a spammer, I would be delighted to find a place
where I could post my spam and be assured that it can't be deleted, because
it's against system policy.
|
gull
|
|
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.
|
keesan
|
|
response 14 of 108:
|
Jan 13 15:31 UTC 2004 |
Re 12, we already get spam posted occasionally in the conferences, but it
usually appears in every conference at the same time. I assume staff could
be requested by a fw to do a global delete.
|
tod
|
|
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.
|
aruba
|
|
response 16 of 108:
|
Jan 14 03:01 UTC 2004 |
Not if this proposal passes they couldn't. I think the proposal is to
rigid, so I will be voting against it, if it comes to a vote.
|
albaugh
|
|
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.
|
aruba
|
|
response 18 of 108:
|
Jan 14 17:10 UTC 2004 |
I think I said so already. It would be an invitation to people to spam the
conferences - literally fill up the disk with trash because they know it
can't be deleted. Are you saying you don't know anyone who would do that?
|
carson
|
|
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]
|
albaugh
|
|
response 20 of 108:
|
Jan 14 19:23 UTC 2004 |
Re: #18 - Sorry, I do remember you reading that. Well, that should be solved
simply enough - the "standing" policy for *every* conference is that the fw's
can & will kill entire items that are deliberately created for the purpose
of SPAMming the conference. Or, a "progressive" approach might be that the
fw's first *retire* such SPAM items, and after some period of time where it
becomes apparent that no one is contributing to them, then kill them.
|
carson
|
|
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.")
|
albaugh
|
|
response 22 of 108:
|
Jan 14 20:19 UTC 2004 |
I disagree that gull's proposal eliminates that option. See his exception
re: conference policy.
|
aruba
|
|
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.
|
gull
|
|
response 24 of 108:
|
Jan 15 01:49 UTC 2004 |
I don't think spamming conferences has been that big a problem. I've
only seen a handful of incidents of it in the entire time I've been
here, and in most of them nothing was done anyway. To the extent it is
a problem, retiring the offending items would solve it.
I don't really see any evidence that there are legions of spammers out
there just waiting to pounce when we revise our item-removal policy.
|
richard
|
|
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.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 26 of 108:
|
Jan 15 05:03 UTC 2004 |
Wrong. The worst offenders have been those who come in, make a single comment
every where they can find, and then disappear, never to be heard from again.
|
bhoward
|
|
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.
|
jp2
|
|
response 28 of 108:
|
Jan 15 11:22 UTC 2004 |
Really, discussion of disabling the mass-scribble command is a non-starter.
It cannot be done. So give up.
|
ryan
|
|
response 29 of 108:
|
Jan 15 13:44 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
carson
|
|
response 30 of 108:
|
Jan 15 14:04 UTC 2004 |
(resp:24 you're right; "retiring" an item is about as effective
as "killing" an item in that scenario. thanks for pointing that out.)
|
janc
|
|
response 31 of 108:
|
Jan 15 17:00 UTC 2004 |
You can only retire an entire item, not a single response to an item. So if
I post a "Loest Pricess for Viagra" response to every item in coop, the only
way to make them all vanish would be to scribble them. Even then users would
still see the item come up new.
When I did the pistachio interface, I have fairwitnesses the ability to
customize the look of their conferences (colors, login screens, etc).
Basically, none did, so I eventually added the ability of users to
do such customization. I think one of the problems with this policy is
that most conferences would announce no policy. Probalby the proposal
should include a default policy for conferences who post none.
|
gull
|
|
response 32 of 108:
|
Jan 15 17:11 UTC 2004 |
That's a good point. My first reaction is that the default policy
should be "no fairwitness deletions", but I'm willing to entertain other
suggestions. I think it can be fairly restrictive, since if a
fairwitness actually cares to use their deletion power it doesn't take
much effort to post a policy.
|