|
Grex > Coop8 > #52: Adding .yeswrite and .nowrite to the write program | |
|
| Author |
Message |
nephi
|
|
Adding .yeswrite and .nowrite to the write program
| 
Apr 9 20:57 UTC 1996 |
Several people seem to be keen on adding options to write, chat, tel, (and
talk?), so that they can customize who they want to talk with in real time.
People said that they'd like to be able to make up a list of the people they
don't want to talk to, perhaps called .nowrite, so that they could stop from
being harrassed by "horny teenagers."
People also said that they'd like to be able to make up a list of "special
people" who would still be able to write them, even if their messages are for
everyone else are off. Perhaps this file could be called .yeswrite or
somesuch.
As I understand it, if something like this were done, people could do
something like a "mesg y" to accept messages from everyone, probably the
system default, "mesg h" to accept message from everyone but those who
harrass, "mesg f" to accept messages only from friends, and "mesg n" to not
accept messages at all. Of course, the letters I chose are arbitrary, but
they underline the notion that things would stay as they are for people who
like it as it is, and that the people who are having problems with the current
setup can fix it so that they don't have to give up on the real time
communications altogether.
(I'm also going to create items for the other additions/changes to write so
as to help keep the discussions of each of these ideas a little more clear.)
|
| 315 responses total. |
steve
|
|
response 1 of 315:
|
Apr 9 21:30 UTC 1996 |
I see a real problem with this.
This helps create an "us" and "them" type of mentality, and
encourages people to just shut others out if there is a problem.
I don't think this is a the way to go.
I know there are some legitimate reasons for wanting the ability
to shunt someone off, like young males who harass women. Thats not
a trivial problem. But, I'd rather see staff working on dealing with
the individuals rather than come up with a system that doesn't quite
stop the problem, and makes it worse for those who don't know the
"trick" of setting the files up.
I hope we don't add this to Grex.
|
janc
|
|
response 2 of 315:
|
Apr 9 22:54 UTC 1996 |
I am personally far less than enthusiastic. It would take a strong show of
support to convince me that this should be done.
|
brighn
|
|
response 3 of 315:
|
Apr 10 00:01 UTC 1996 |
*reads STeve's comments and coughs*
*I* write to staff and say "I'm having a problem with so-and-so, I get mail
that says, "Grex Staff does not get involved with interpersonal conflicts."
(see also my comments in 51)
|
kerouac
|
|
response 4 of 315:
|
Apr 10 00:11 UTC 1996 |
this would only benefit those who know how to set this up, and would
increase an insider/outsider mentality. This is the sort of thing that would
erect barriers between new users and veteran users. Therefore I think
its not conducive at all to increasing usage and interactivity. So
unless its proven that this would benefit a LOT more people than it
would (instead of only those who know a lot of folks on here), I dont think
its worthwhile at all.
|
scg
|
|
response 5 of 315:
|
Apr 10 02:26 UTC 1996 |
The argument that it would only benifit those who know what they're doing
could also be made against having vi here.
|
steve
|
|
response 6 of 315:
|
Apr 10 02:29 UTC 1996 |
Paul, nowhere has Grex staff said they *won't* get involved.
Several times we've said that we'd rather not get involved, but
if a situation continues sometimes we do. Sometimes.
|
brighn
|
|
response 7 of 315:
|
Apr 10 06:26 UTC 1996 |
STeve, I've deleted the mails.
I have received mail from baffers that have said, without qualification,
that they will not and do not get involved in interpersonal conflicts.
Please don't tell me what other baffers have written to me. I know
what I've read. Popcorn has sent mails like you describe, along the
lines of "why can't you guys just work it out, I'd rather not get involved".
In one case, the situation was one in which a user had threatened to
mail bomb me and hack my account. If that's less serous than a few
sexually harassing chats from some teenaged boy with a hardon, I'm
surprised.
At any rate, I could argue that beyond legal scope "I won't get involved"
and "I'd rather not get involved" carry the same pragmatic meaning and
differ only in the level of politeness... in short, "I'd rather not get
involved" is just a polite way of saying "Go away."
By sending out mails such as these, the baffers are not creating
an environment conducive to complaints in the case of harassment,
and I understand that. It's not the baffer's business to go chasing
after every pair of people who don't get along. Y'all are volunteer
programmers and support staff, not parents and principals. And I'm
suggesting that such complaints -- so and so is bugging me -- would go
down dramatically if there were ways of filtering specific users.
Such things exist for the mails (there's one user that I do not get
mail from) and for party, but if there were easier methods, then I
think the conflicts would go down.
|
steve
|
|
response 8 of 315:
|
Apr 10 13:52 UTC 1996 |
I've never seen filter systems work on keeping complaints between
users who don't like each other. It seems reasonable to think that,
but I have never seen that to be true. Thats part of the reason I'm
not for them: it changes the social dynamics in a negative way, and
doesn't solve the commonly stated problem of "if I can ingore N, there
won't be a problem".
|
brighn
|
|
response 9 of 315:
|
Apr 10 21:00 UTC 1996 |
*shrugs* It's worked for me personally. I can't speak for
others. Of course, there are some immature people on the Net.
Otherwise I wouldn't have to ignore anyone at all. *g*
(self included at times)
|
carson
|
|
response 10 of 315:
|
Apr 11 02:40 UTC 1996 |
*not meant to insult, but as an example*
I learned to ignore brighn. We interact fairly well now. I think
that's a good sign on _both_ our parts.
|
brighn
|
|
response 11 of 315:
|
Apr 11 04:41 UTC 1996 |
*laughs*
Yes, we interact excellently when we ignore each other entirely.
*giggles*
|
ajax
|
|
response 12 of 315:
|
Apr 11 07:20 UTC 1996 |
Having used systems with selective chat permissions, I'm a big fan of
them. It allows people more freedom of choice. If *you* don't want to
project an insider/outsider image, then keep your perms open, but I think
it should be left up to the individual. As it is, many people always keep
their permissions off, which is certainly no more friendly than having
them selectively off.
|
arthurp
|
|
response 13 of 315:
|
Apr 11 12:51 UTC 1996 |
I have an idea. Since we don't want to end up with a lot of .foes around,
maybe we could implement these changes, but make the .nowrite file belong to
staff and not give the user write permission to it. Then people would only
end up in there if they were a *real* problem. 'Course that's more work for
staff. $.02.
|
remmers
|
|
response 14 of 315:
|
Apr 11 17:39 UTC 1996 |
Ugh. Speaking as a staff member, I don't want to have to make
decisions about who can and can't write to whom. Sounds like a sure
path to the nannyfication of grex. I'd much rather see such
software be an empowerment of users rather than an instrument of
staff control of users.
|
steve
|
|
response 15 of 315:
|
Apr 11 18:33 UTC 1996 |
Charles, not only is it more work for staff, but that sets up staff
having a "power" of a sort that I don't think staff should have.
John says it well: "ugh". (sorry)
|
popcorn
|
|
response 16 of 315:
|
Apr 12 06:54 UTC 1996 |
Ditto.
|
arthurp
|
|
response 17 of 315:
|
Apr 12 23:40 UTC 1996 |
Cool. :)
|
remmers
|
|
response 18 of 315:
|
Apr 13 10:51 UTC 1996 |
Your $.02 has been cheerfully refunded. ;-)
|
nephi
|
|
response 19 of 315:
|
Apr 17 04:37 UTC 1996 |
Rob Argy is an extremely intelligent person, and I fully agree with his
argument about empowering each user by letting him or her decide who he
or she wants to communicate with (or be harrassed by).
Telling a user who is being harrassed that he or she can't use write or
chat anymore seems extremely callous to me.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 20 of 315:
|
Apr 17 12:31 UTC 1996 |
|
adbarr
|
|
response 21 of 315:
|
Apr 17 22:54 UTC 1996 |
I guess that is a .nowrite? Terse, that woman!
|
sidhe
|
|
response 22 of 315:
|
Apr 21 04:54 UTC 1996 |
I fully support ths concept.
Now, that in and of itself seems to have caused things I like to die
before, so perhaps I should say nothing. However, Jan, you said you
wanted to see support.. here it is.
|
mta
|
|
response 23 of 315:
|
Apr 22 02:47 UTC 1996 |
Frankly, though I doubt I'd ever use it myself, I think this is an excellent
idea. I'd feel better knowing that I *could* selectively refuse messages from
someone who was harassing me. (THat's why I use initials here on GREX. A
long time ago, in a place not to far from here, I never got to conference at
all because my name (Misti) sounded "cute" or "interested" to all the wrong
people.
|
kharder
|
|
response 24 of 315:
|
Apr 27 18:39 UTC 1996 |
Well, here it is, my first comment in a GREX conference, and it's an easily
debatable topic. I have to agree with many of the above points. Steve is
right in his concern that this *could* be used by some to create a "them/us"
environment, but I don't really think that would happen. Depending on how the
end user sets these potential options, a would be harassing person could get
around them by simply using another login to get through. But Rob Argy's
comment has validity as well, the choice, if given to the user, would at least
allow them to have an option to be less accessible to would be jerks. I
haven't had a serious enough problem with anyone to *need* this, but as Misti
pointed out, it would be nice to know the option existed. If it's not too
much work to produce these options, I'd be in support of it.
|