|
Grex > Coop11 > #173: Motion to make scribble permanently erase response text | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 255 responses total. |
jmsaul
|
|
response 81 of 255:
| 
Jun 2 17:47 UTC 2000 |
The censor command does that.
|
aaron
|
|
response 82 of 255:
|
Jun 2 18:56 UTC 2000 |
Using a number of systems where after-the-fact removal of text (or
editing of text) is permitted, I am reminded of one guy who made
after-the-fact changes that they now use his name to describe that
process. ("I wish you would stop 'smithing' your posts.") The idea
that continuity would disappear is absurd, given the trouble one has
to go through to presently retrieve scribbled remarks. The notion
that Grexers are so stupid that they could not figure out what the
game was is just plain insulting.
|
goroke
|
|
response 83 of 255:
|
Jun 2 21:25 UTC 2000 |
Okay, instead of changing the current command set to do something else, what
about leaving those commands as-is, and adding a new option, "retract", which
would write to an unreadable log, and have scribble and expurgate write to
the readable one? This would allow staff to track who uses which command and
assemble some meaningful stats as to whether the new option materially
affected user habits.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 84 of 255:
|
Jun 3 03:23 UTC 2000 |
I gather that cfadm's have some editing capabilities w.r.t. conference
items. Clarification: Are cfadm's considered "staff"? If not, then,
to be precise, I should amend my motion to say "non-staff" and "non-
cfadm" (appropriate wording & logic to follow).
|
i
|
|
response 85 of 255:
|
Jun 3 16:08 UTC 2000 |
All the conference data files are owned by cfadm, so cfadm has unlimited
power to add/edit/delete/whatever. (Whether & under what circumstances
a cfadm might use that power are another matter.) In the broad/official
sense, cfadm's are staff (must be approved by other staff & the board,
etc.).
For purposes of this discussion on conferences, censorship policies, etc.,
cfadm's are definitely staff.
In many other specific contexts, though, "staff" is used to mean "has
root-level powers", and cfadm is NOT staff in that sense. If some little
brat graduates from scribble-on-the-walls-with-crayons to bog-down-grex-
with-a-forkbomb-script, cfadm can't do anything more about it than can
Ivan from Ukraine who just ran newuser yesterday.
|
janc
|
|
response 86 of 255:
|
Jun 5 13:27 UTC 2000 |
Right. As far as the conferences are concerned, 'cfadm' is as good as
root, since essentially all files are owned by 'cfadm' (including the
Picospan and Backtalk programs) and could theoretically be editted in
arbitrary ways. And, like root-staff, cfadm is expected to do
substantially less than they are theoretically capable of, operating
only within the restrictions of Grex policy. So they are officially
staff. So are 'partyadm' people.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 87 of 255:
|
Jun 5 17:48 UTC 2000 |
I will be voting for a new policy which allows me to permanently remove one
or more of my responses from a discussion item. I have no problem with that
entry being stored in a file that only staff can view. I do have a problem
with the current policy which allows the techie-few to view those files, and
creates the (inaccurate) feeling that scribbling and/or expurtgating a
response has deleted it from this system entirely.
I like being able to enter a long response, and then shielding the casual
reader from screens full of text by "hiding" that response
_within_the_discussion_item_.
I too have been persuaded on this decision by the copyright concept that Grex
does not have control of my words just because I published them on a bbs.
No matter where I publish, I still retain the copyright. I am willing to
grant staff limited use of those words by retaining a non-public copy of
anything I post, even if I come to believe that I am causing harm by leaving
it publicly readable. (Or for any other reason that I want to burn my own
books).
|
remmers
|
|
response 88 of 255:
|
Jun 5 18:12 UTC 2000 |
Re #87, 2nd paragraph: I don't think there's any controversy
about the hide/expurgate command.
|
mwg
|
|
response 89 of 255:
|
Jun 6 17:56 UTC 2000 |
Yet again, an item that exists primarily because people want to escape the
consequences of stupidity.
I have, in the past, metaphorically given myself athletes' teeth, and will
no doubt do so in the future. The idea is to learn from this sort of
thing. Copyright law is already near to, if not past, the point where
we'd be better off aggravating the problem it suppossedly addresses.
Applying copyright to a conversational medium in the manner suggested here
is so non-sensical I can't even describe it adequately.
The coffee is hot, you should know to watch where you put it without being
told.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 90 of 255:
|
Jun 6 18:45 UTC 2000 |
It's my coffee; I should be able to take it away if I want to.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 91 of 255:
|
Jun 8 02:41 UTC 2000 |
<resists the temptation to burst into song>
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 92 of 255:
|
Jun 8 02:43 UTC 2000 |
(I know. I just couldn't think of a way to get the joke in there.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 93 of 255:
|
Jun 9 16:42 UTC 2000 |
I say "no". I believe the character of grex exists in part because
individuals take responsibility for their own words. This action would
negate that. (But the action of expurgate/scribble should be written
into the instructions, which can be done without a vote.)
|
slynne
|
|
response 94 of 255:
|
Jun 9 17:53 UTC 2000 |
I am somewhat concerned because I am in the group that feels that I own my
words that I post here. When grex refuses to allow me to permanently erase
something I have said, I really feel that The-Powers-That-Be are somehow
trying to control what I say. Mary Remmers's comments that grex needs to have
publicly readable censor logs so that people will behave better online
especially makes me feel like this is more an issue of control than it should
be.
I mean, come on, how often to people really scribble their own posts? Hardly
ever. This is such a non-issue when it comes to the day to day operation of
grex that it is laughable and yet, people like me get all up in arms about
it because we dont like people to control what we say and people like Mary
Remmers get all up in arms about it because they seem to believe that keeping
everything publicly readable will give them more control over things. And
that's funny too because not allowing someone to erase what they write doesnt
really take that much control away from them and letting everyone read
scribbled responses probably doesnt make them behave any better.
|
mary
|
|
response 95 of 255:
|
Jun 9 21:53 UTC 2000 |
Fine point, maybe, but I'm not advocating a publicly readable
censor file, but rather that the scribble command be removed
entirely. And this has nothing at all to do with controlling
what you can say. You can say whatever you want, no sweat.
Unsaying it is the tricky part.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 96 of 255:
|
Jun 9 23:03 UTC 2000 |
Being forced to keep saying it is what we're talking about.
|
slynne
|
|
response 97 of 255:
|
Jun 10 00:00 UTC 2000 |
Removing the scribble command probably wont make people behave better either.
I have said all kinds of rude things to people over the years and I dont
generally scribble what I say.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 98 of 255:
|
Jun 10 03:29 UTC 2000 |
The final wording of the motion appears here between the === lines:
=============================================================================
Shall the picospan "scribble" and backtalk "erase" commands
permanently make the text of responses inaccessible to non-staff users?
Note: For the purpose of conference item administration cfadm's are
considered "staff".
=============================================================================
I think that the note line will be clarifying for those people that care
about these subtleties, and thus should be part of the motion text.
But I can be persuaded otherwise.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 99 of 255:
|
Jun 10 04:28 UTC 2000 |
Looks very reasonable.
|
void
|
|
response 100 of 255:
|
Jun 10 05:24 UTC 2000 |
it's better than nothing.
|
krj
|
|
response 101 of 255:
|
Jun 10 06:01 UTC 2000 |
What does "permanently" mean in the case where an account is hacked
and a vandal deletes a bunch of stuff, and the original author wants it
restored?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 102 of 255:
|
Jun 10 13:12 UTC 2000 |
If you're keeping it in a staff-readable log, that shouldn't be a problem --
JUST LIKE NOW. Come on, Ken, weren't you reading that discussion?
|
krj
|
|
response 103 of 255:
|
Jun 10 15:55 UTC 2000 |
If staff can restore responses scribbled by a vandal who breaks into an
account, then by definition the text is not "permanently" inaccessible
to non-staff users. I'm quibbling with the wording of the proposition,
not with what you (seldon) seem to want.
|
pfv
|
|
response 104 of 255:
|
Jun 10 16:21 UTC 2000 |
As the true user would have to prove such to staff, and staff
would then reinstall the inaccessible material, I fail to see
point OR quibble: are you freakin' on a haqueer deleting, or the
haqueer restoring?
*sigh* Just deprem the frickin' log and move along, sheesh - if
you can't trust staff, then yer well and truly gefuckt.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 105 of 255:
|
Jun 10 17:00 UTC 2000 |
Here's better wording that addresses Ken's point:
Shall the PicoSpan "scribble" and Backtalk "erase" commands place the text
of responses in a file permitted only to staff and cfadms?
|