Grex Oldcoop Conference

Item 70: Blog Conference

Entered by ryan on Wed Jan 7 22:31:32 2004:

ryan Mon Aug 29 22:49:55 2005 Ryan Antkowiak,,, ryan Mon Aug 29 22:49:55 20
ryan Mon Aug 29 22:49:55 2005 Ryan Antkowiak,,, ryan Mon Aug 29 22:49:55 20
ryan Mon Aug 29 22:49:55 2005 Ryan Antkowiak,,, ryan Mon Aug 29 22:49:55 20
ryan Mon Aug 29 22:49:55 2005 R
73 responses total.

#1 of 73 by willcome on Wed Jan 7 22:55:39 2004:

No.


#2 of 73 by naftee on Wed Jan 7 23:15:03 2004:

No.


#3 of 73 by mynxcat on Wed Jan 7 23:38:39 2004:

you don't need a separate cf if you just freeze your items and enter stuff
you want to say.

I'm not sure a blog cf is the answer. When you enter a blog, it needs to be
in the cf it's most relevant to. I don't see blogs really flying, otherwise


#4 of 73 by mary on Wed Jan 7 23:52:25 2004:

Yes.

I'd not be entering text there though.


#5 of 73 by cmcgee on Thu Jan 8 01:12:37 2004:

Great Idea!  I think it would be just fine.


#6 of 73 by mta on Thu Jan 8 01:36:45 2004:

yes, i woul support the idea


#7 of 73 by jp2 on Thu Jan 8 02:00:28 2004:

This response has been erased.



#8 of 73 by gull on Thu Jan 8 02:19:48 2004:

I wouldn't have any problem with it as long as it was constrained to one
conference.

However, I think it's unnecessary.  You can freeze an item and get the
same effect.  Or you can use LiveJournal, which is a far better tool for
running a blog.  Running a one-person-only blog item on Grex is a bit
like pounding a nail with a screwdriver.


#9 of 73 by jp2 on Thu Jan 8 02:31:33 2004:

This response has been erased.



#10 of 73 by bhoward on Thu Jan 8 02:38:20 2004:

Hmm.  Interesting.  Want to think about it a little more but
I think this could be an interesting experiment and the rules for that
conference could be made clear to participants in the conference login
message.

I need to reread the charter/amendments/policy decisions tonight though
to see whether we would need to make any formal change to the grex bylaws
to do this.


#11 of 73 by naftee on Thu Jan 8 02:42:16 2004:

Yay, livejournal.


#12 of 73 by mynxcat on Thu Jan 8 02:46:35 2004:

You don't post much in livejournal :(


#13 of 73 by aruba on Thu Jan 8 03:53:54 2004:

Sure, a blog conference is a good idea.


#14 of 73 by ryan on Thu Jan 8 04:00:46 2004:

This response has been erased.



#15 of 73 by bhoward on Thu Jan 8 05:07:04 2004:

Re#7: Promise? :-)


#16 of 73 by cross on Thu Jan 8 05:08:27 2004:

I'm against it philosophically.


#17 of 73 by gelinas on Thu Jan 8 05:17:13 2004:

I think it's a good idea.  If you need another fairwitness, I'd be happy to
help.

I don't know that I'd enter an item, but I'd certainly be inclined to respond
to items others entered.


#18 of 73 by valerie on Thu Jan 8 07:07:52 2004:

This response has been erased.



#19 of 73 by jaklumen on Thu Jan 8 08:15:56 2004:

resp:8 I agree-- LiveJournal is mighty handy.

If a blog cf was created, there's nothing that doesn't say people 
couldn't link a blog site to the cf and maybe post selections once in 
a while.  I don't know if this isn't superfluous, however.

I really think Grex can't be handled like a typical blog and a 
conference can't be run like one.  I could see a conference being 
created discussing the ethical implications of running a blog maybe... 
like, what things should you avoid posting about work so you don't get 
fired (say if your boss happens to read it)?  There might be debate on 
how much information is too much... yadda yadda... and then people 
might link their various blog sites.  *shrug*  I think that might be a 
little more interesting and might suit Grex a little better.  Your 
mileage may vary, depending on maintenance schedule.


#20 of 73 by jp2 on Thu Jan 8 13:39:50 2004:

This response has been erased.



#21 of 73 by slynne on Thu Jan 8 14:46:50 2004:

I think it is a good idea. I probably would even try to use it. There 
are a lot of limitations with grex's software as gull points out. It is 
a lot easier to keep a blog on a site with blogging software for 
reasons other than just control over the item. 



#22 of 73 by cmcgee on Thu Jan 8 15:07:38 2004:

I was thinking about proposing a conference called "moderated" in which it
was made clear through initial posting and periodic reminders that the
conference had a moderator, not a fairwitness, and that the moderator would
and could use their powers to delete items.  The conventions of the conf would
be that the user id that starts an item could email the fw from that id and
ask for an item to be removed.  

No new staff burden, just a way for us to try out the policy for a while to
see if it made much difference.  I'd be glad to "moderate" that conf.


#23 of 73 by naftee on Thu Jan 8 16:34:02 2004:

re 12 I don't have much time!


#24 of 73 by jep on Thu Jan 8 18:52:29 2004:

I'd want a "moderated" conference to be on a separate filesystem, which 
would prevent the possibility of linked items.

I don't read or write blogs, and am not sure how they'd work within 
Picospan or Backtalk.  It sounds like an interesting possibility.


#25 of 73 by jp2 on Thu Jan 8 18:54:55 2004:

This response has been erased.



#26 of 73 by willcome on Thu Jan 8 19:30:14 2004:

YAY!


#27 of 73 by naftee on Thu Jan 8 23:01:10 2004:

AYAYAYAYAY!!!


#28 of 73 by jep on Fri Jan 9 00:41:12 2004:

The blog conference, in my opinion, would only work if each user had 
the capabilities of a f-w within his own item.  The easiest way to do 
that within Picospan would be to make a separate blog conference for 
each user.

Now, *that*, in my opinion, has potential.  Create a separate 
conference for any user who wants one.  On NextGrex, there will be 
enough disk space to allow this.

I would want the blog conference to be on a separate filesystem from 
other conferences.  Currently, a fairwitness can link an item into his 
conference, then censor or scribble responses from that item.  I 
wouldn't want to give any and all users the ability to do that to items 
in the public conferences, just on request.

Maybe there's a way in Picospan and/or Backtalk to eliminate the link 
command from the powers given to a f-w.  Have the blog conferences 
owned by an alternative "cfadm" user, call it "blogadm", who doesn't 
have access to the link command, for example.  Then bloggers couldn't 
mess with each other's blogs.


#29 of 73 by krj on Fri Jan 9 00:55:04 2004:

Common legal wisdom on online forums is that the forum and its staff
can only dodge liability for libel issues when they don't exercise
editorial control or moderation of the content.  Is this still 
seen as the case?


#30 of 73 by ryan on Fri Jan 9 01:40:05 2004:

This response has been erased.



#31 of 73 by mynxcat on Fri Jan 9 01:50:43 2004:

If you really want a blog conference, you'd need a method whereby individual
authors of items could moderate and censor comments to his/her blog. By this,
I don't mean change someone's words, but be able to delete comments they're
not comfortable with, or disallow certain users to post. Without this you're
just going to have a whole bunck of nuked items becomes someone went aheand
a posted nasrty comments on people's blogs.


#32 of 73 by mary on Fri Jan 9 02:04:26 2004:

I would like to see the blog conference incorporate all of your
wishes, if the software allows.  It would be an interesting
experiment.  But my support goes *poof* if all of this censorship
power isn't clearly displayed as a warning on the conference login
page.


#33 of 73 by mary on Fri Jan 9 02:14:49 2004:

Actually, I'm going to ammend that last comment slightly.
You state you'd like the FW to be able to choose who has
access to the conference.  That's not something I'd support
Grex doing even on an experimental basis.  I guess we all
have our limits. ;-)


#34 of 73 by naftee on Fri Jan 9 02:20:11 2004:

It seems none of you guys have ever heard of the rc file.


#35 of 73 by mynxcat on Fri Jan 9 03:00:25 2004:

Re 33> If that was a response to my post, I meant that the author should have
control over who could respond to their individual blog in the conference.
(If we decie to have individual conferences for individual blogs, yes, then
the FW)

I know it's not Grex policy to do that, and I don't want to see that happen
either. But without such a provision, we're going to have pretty unhappy
bloggers. Which is why I don't think the conference is such a good idea. But
I'm willing to see it as an experiment. But then I wouldn't participate in
it, except to read it.


#36 of 73 by jmsaul on Fri Jan 9 03:17:25 2004:

Re #29:  No.  One of the surviving parts of the CDA changed that.


#37 of 73 by jep on Fri Jan 9 05:18:05 2004:

I believe my suggestion of making a separate filesystem for the blog 
conferences, and having separate conferences for each blog, is 
workable on Grex using Picospan.  There are no obvious technical 
obstacles to it.

A conference on Grex is a subdirectory of /bbs, and also a line 
in /bbs/conflist.  For example:

   ag_ora:%agora48

The line in /bbs/conflist can point to directories which are not 
subdirectories of /bbs.  I don't recall the exact syntax, but I 
imagine it would look like this:

   jep:/blog/jep

The biggest obstacles are not the space or separate directory required 
for the conference itself, it would be the participation files.  A 
different participation file is needed for each conference you read.  
If blogs, using my proposed format, become common, then some users 
might have thousands of participation files for them, with each 
consuming 1 block of disk space and 1 inode.  I speculate a block on 
the home filesystem for NextGrex will be 1K, so 1000 participation 
files would occupy 1 MB.

There's nothing preposterous so far.  Disk space is really, really 
cheap these days.

If blogs using this system become really popular, it might be well to 
automate the creation of the blog conference directory and entry 
in /bbs/conflist.

Now for the advantages.  The powers suggested for the blog conference 
are the same powers a fw already has.  A fw of his own blog conference 
can make use of the rc, login, logout, index and bulletin files to 
customize his conference.  He can remove -- but not edit -- responses 
or items.  It would be possible, if the cfadm set it up that way, to 
have lists to permit or restrict individual loginids access, or write 
access, to the conference.

As I said previously, I am not familiar with blogs, but it seems to me 
this ought to add up to a pretty reasonable capability for producing a 
blog.


#38 of 73 by davel on Fri Jan 9 13:33:04 2004:

Just as a technical matter, for that to work you'd need a separate FS for each
blog conference.  Otherwise, anyone could link someone else's blog into his
conference & refuse to delete it.  I don't think it'll work, John.


#39 of 73 by jep on Fri Jan 9 15:10:56 2004:

Is there no way to disable the link capability for the fairwitness of a 
conference?


#40 of 73 by other on Fri Jan 9 16:25:00 2004:

If I were to guess, I'd say that linking is just another way of 
saying "creating a symlink" and as far as I know, there is no way to 
prevent anyone with write access to a directory from creating a 
symlink to any other file on the filesystem to which that user has 
read access.

Am I wrong on this?


#41 of 73 by jp2 on Fri Jan 9 16:28:12 2004:

This response has been erased.



#42 of 73 by other on Fri Jan 9 16:33:21 2004:

Ok, correction noted, but in what way does that alter my conclusion
(that there's really no way to prevent item linking by anyone with 
fw access to the conference directory without significantly 
rewriting picospan to redefine the functions of or create a whole 
new class of fw)?



#43 of 73 by jp2 on Fri Jan 9 17:05:06 2004:

This response has been erased.



#44 of 73 by other on Fri Jan 9 17:15:41 2004:

or #0, since #1 is rather short on verbage of any useful sort.


#45 of 73 by jp2 on Fri Jan 9 17:43:34 2004:

This response has been erased.



#46 of 73 by bhelliom on Fri Jan 9 17:58:21 2004:

Yeah but what's that in binary, huh?  :p


#47 of 73 by jp2 on Fri Jan 9 18:01:18 2004:

This response has been erased.



#48 of 73 by mynxcat on Fri Jan 9 19:49:32 2004:

You've been reading too much Doug Adams.


#49 of 73 by mary on Fri Jan 9 21:29:16 2004:

You folks are setting yourself up for disappointment
here.  If you enter text in a blog conference, with all
kinds of special rules about how you'll be in control
of your own text, etc., etc., you be begging folks to
save copies of your items just because they can.

Doubt it?  Check out M-net about a day after you 
start feeling comfortable with your new control.

Grex is public.  You shouldn't enter anything here
you don't want public.  If you do, the system is
gracious enough to allow you to remove your words.
But we can't go any further and it's unrealistic to
expect we can make your mistakes go away.


#50 of 73 by willcome on Fri Jan 9 21:32:58 2004:

doesn't mean Grex shouldn't try.  As a nurse who has performed thousands of
abortions, you should know pretty well the reasons why it's heartless to not
help people clean up their mistakes.


#51 of 73 by jp2 on Fri Jan 9 21:34:12 2004:

This response has been erased.



#52 of 73 by other on Fri Jan 9 21:37:19 2004:

51:  <chuckle>  Yup.  Sure did.


#53 of 73 by jep on Fri Jan 9 21:44:06 2004:

Mary's got a good point about control of text.  On Grex or on any other 
system, there is no way for information to be both public and 
controlled.

I don't think that means a blog conference or system can't be part of 
Grex.  I think people just need to be aware that that's the way it is.


#54 of 73 by naftee on Fri Jan 9 23:48:56 2004:

re 48 He makes for good reads.

re 50 YEAH< BEING MARY< SHE SHOULD"VE MARRIED THE PEOPLE < RATHER THAN 
ABORT THEM< AGHAHAHA


#55 of 73 by happyboy on Sat Jan 10 01:07:17 2004:

re50:  

/shoots fresca out of nose!


#56 of 73 by scott on Sat Jan 10 02:16:16 2004:

Ya know, this is a golden opportunity for us Grexers to FORCE righteous
M-Netters to archive ludicrous amounts of essentially useless text.


#57 of 73 by cmcgee on Sat Jan 10 02:25:58 2004:

OOOh, what a Great Idea!


#58 of 73 by jmsaul on Sat Jan 10 04:50:21 2004:

M-Net's got plenty of disk space.


#59 of 73 by happyboy on Sat Jan 10 11:39:15 2004:

and it is FASTER.


#60 of 73 by jaklumen on Sat Jan 10 12:22:48 2004:

ya know ya make me hot when ya talk dirty like that.


#61 of 73 by jmsaul on Sat Jan 10 14:09:17 2004:

I don't want to make you hot.  I've seen what you post about in the sex.cf.


#62 of 73 by naftee on Sat Jan 10 17:06:34 2004:

YEA, he'll come to m-net, where it's HOT and FAST. BOO YEA


#63 of 73 by janc on Sat Jan 10 19:55:17 2004:

A linked item is a hard link, but the item directories are owned by
"cfadm".  No fairwitness could link an item by executing "ln" themselves.
If backtalk and picospan were modified not to prevent fw's in those
conferences from executing the "link" command, it would prevent linked
items.


#64 of 73 by jep on Sun Jan 11 03:55:33 2004:

It would take a modification to picospan and backtalk?  Somehow I 
don't see those two changes as being very likely.


#65 of 73 by jaklumen on Sun Jan 11 10:12:03 2004:

resp:61 pretty much in context with the rest of the horrors there ;)  
don't read it if you can't handle it


#66 of 73 by cyklone on Sun Jan 11 14:45:46 2004:

Very good! Glad to see you get it.


#67 of 73 by janc on Sun Jan 11 17:45:01 2004:

I'd be perfectly willing to make such a change to Backtalk.  Having more
per-conference configurability of user and fw powers is something I want
to do anyway.  I even have some notes on how to do this.

I suspect the chances of changes to Picospan are slimmer.


#68 of 73 by jep on Mon Jan 12 00:42:12 2004:

I was envisioning a way to remove the Unix link command itself.  But 
then, I was envisioning a way to use a separate Unix loginid to own 
the blog files.  I guess that part would be difficult if we didn't 
also use a separate set of Picospan and Backtalk binaries, huh?

Oh, well.  My idea is more involved than I had expected.  It is hereby 
junked at this time, but if the capabilities come together at some 
point in the future, I think it could be worth revisiting.

In general, I support the blog conference.  I think it will be a very 
resource-intensive fw position for someone if it becomes popular, but 
it's worth a try.

Grex has tried very few new ideas in the past, and could benefit from 
some innovation.  I don't think we should be quick to shoot down 
something new.  This blog conference proposal is new, different, and 
outside the normal historical scope of Grex's functions.  Those are 
positives.


#69 of 73 by jaklumen on Mon Jan 12 01:46:52 2004:

resp:66 why thankee.


#70 of 73 by naftee on Mon Jan 12 05:52:37 2004:

Yer welcome!@


#71 of 73 by willcome on Mon Jan 12 10:02:24 2004:

You're welcome!


#72 of 73 by jaklumen on Mon Jan 12 12:39:39 2004:

yeah, yeah, break out the Moosehead beer already.  You two are overdue 
for that six-pack roulette match, eh? ;)


#73 of 73 by jesuit on Wed May 17 02:14:33 2006:

TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: