If FW's can decide read-access, let them decide post-access.

Jan 22 18:02 UTC 1997

This is an extension of a sort to item #27, which discusses a proposal 
to allow anonymous users to have read-access to the conferences.  A 
compromise is about hammered out that will allow fw's to make the 
decision on whether to allow such access.

I would like to know therefore, if access is going to be the fw's 
prerogative, why the fw cannot also be granted the same discretion to 
decide to allow posting to their conf?

What is wrong with anonymous users posting, especially if Backtalk gives 
them a screen in which they would be prompted (voluntarily) to give a 
name and email address?.  Sure, they wouldnt HAVE to give such info 
but they dont HAVE to now to get a login.  I dont see the problem. This 
would be like most other web-based conferencing systems.

I think anonymous readers are far more likely to participate in a conf 
if they can post, rather than just read.  I would welcome their 
participation in the confs I fw, and and feel that if fw's are to be 
able to "exempt" anonymous users from their confs, they should 
conversely be allowed to "include" them as well.  

response 2 of 79:

Jan 22 19:58 UTC 1997

(Thank the gods for that - imagine if everyone who read a single
newsgroup posted one 1kb message in it on the same day!)

response 4 of 79:

Jan 22 20:59 UTC 1997

Even if no changes were made to Backtalk to allow anonymous posting
conventionally, it could still be done within current parameters.  Simply
create a "guest" login that any anony user could use to lo in.  This
could be done to allow anonymous posting inboth bakctalk and picospan
actually.

If so few people post, and fw's can exempt their confs, there is no argument
I can think of against something like this.   though whatI was thinking of
(a posting screen prompting for email and name as well as post) couldnt
possibly be that hard to do.  

I just want to know what the objections are (particularly from Jan since he
could easily have written this into backtal already and chose not to)

response 6 of 79:

Jan 22 22:00 UTC 1997

For web users who are browsing, anything that doesnt hit them over thehead
is too difficult!  If theyhave to leave a conf and go register ot post, they
will just as likely not come back.

response 8 of 79:

Jan 23 05:31 UTC 1997

<sigh>

response 10 of 79:

Jan 23 07:08 UTC 1997

Re 9, there is a web version of newuser.  And the goal of Backtalk is to let
people out on the web do almost everything people who telnet in and use
picospan can do.

response 12 of 79:

Jan 23 21:53 UTC 1997

I have never objected to the idea of a guest account for telnetting.
It was Rob Argy's idea, and I thought it was a good one.

I have always objected to permitting it to post or send e-mail. Such an 
account, in my opinion, should be purely for people to look around with. 
Anonymity is always assured on Grex, anyway. I don't like the idea of 
seeing comments posted by "guest". If even only two people post that 
way, it would confuse everyone.

I feel the same way about the web. The mode of access does not matter.

response 14 of 79:

Jan 24 02:55 UTC 1997

As opposed to getting lots of flaming from users who create
accounts here?  Come now, there's *practically* no difference
between letting people post anonymously vs. making them run
newuser to do it, so we may as well allow anonymous posting.
Right?

response 18 of 79:

Jan 24 23:56 UTC 1997

There is a slight difference between creating an account for flaming, and
flaming useing a 'guest' login.  If people respond to a flame made by a 'real'
account, either the flamer returns and gets the response, or they don't, and
nobody gets the response.  If teh guest login flames people, any mail sent
to 'guest' will just be dumped on the next unfortunate user to stumble in.
Also, if people get mad at a 'real' account due to flaming, nobody is damaged
but the flamer, while a single uncourteous user using the 'guest' login could
cause the next person to use that login to be shouted at for no good reason.

response 20 of 79:

Jan 25 18:03 UTC 1997

I'm thinking of creating a new login, and keeping that login and 
password on my homepage next to a backtalk link (my regular page, not 
the one I have here on grex)  Call it "guest2" or something.  Publicize 
it in a couple of other places I know.

Of course I'd have to change the password frequently and probably would 
have the login stolen a time or two, but basically I could commit myself 
to keeping an open grex login available to at least a few people.  

Could even keep all the closed confs on a .cflist on it or something.  
Nothing prevents me from doing this right?  It would be my way of 
protesting the policy of allowing closed confs. 

response 22 of 79:

Jan 25 20:58 UTC 1997

Good faith does, Richard. I really think if it's your intention to
do that, and you're announcing it, that it goes in all good faith
againt the compromise in 27, the whole idea of community and that
staff should have a serious discussion with you aout it. I FEEL very
threatened and unrespected by that.

response 24 of 79:

Jan 25 21:26 UTC 1997

Actually what I had in mind was in addition to my own homepage, I could
use any new logins' email addresses to procure a new web page at  
a commercial place (I'm thinking of geocities among others)

I would then call this web page the "Grex and M-net" links page or
something.  And provide logins and passwords to each as well as links.
(I could include info about each system and what I think are the cool
confs on both)  Once this page is listed properly, anyone who references
grex or mnet in a web search could get this page as an option.

I would of course encourage anyone who tries grex or mnet and likes it to
get their own login as opposed to using the ones being provided.