|
Grex > Coop11 > #173: Motion to make scribble permanently erase response text | |
|
| Author |
Message |
albaugh
|
|
Motion to make scribble permanently erase response text
| 
May 28 04:47 UTC 2000 |
The debate has by now indeed raged in at least 2 items in 2 conferences.
Everyone by now (who cares) is undoubtedly aware of the issue and its
various aspects. Probably most people are tired of debating it.
So accordingly, I make the following motion (in the form of a question):
Shall the picospan "scribble" command (and accordingly the
backtalk "erase" command) permanently erase the text of a response?
|
| 255 responses total. |
albaugh
|
|
response 1 of 255:
|
May 28 04:58 UTC 2000 |
We already know from a technical standpoint that causing a response's
text to be permanently erased can easily be done.
We know that people should indeed carefully consider what they intend
to say before making a response in a BBS.
We know that it is possible for an individual to make a personal copy
of response text before the author has a chance to erase it.
We know that it could be awkward to see follow up responses refer to a
response whose text is subsequently erased.
We know that all manner of childish games relating to this could be
played by people acting childishly.
However, for me, most of those are hypothetical situations,
intellectual debate and fear mongering over worst case scenarios.
To me, it's just a simple matter of letting the response author "think
better of it" after the fact. The fact that this isn't possible in e-
mail (sometimes it is!), letters to the editor, on TV, etc., while
intellectually interesting, has no bearing on whether or not grex can
do it. Some might argue that just because you can do something doesn't
mean you should do it. True enough. But in this case, I don't happen
to think allowing permanent erasure of response text is going to cause
the sky to fall, or put out the lights at the pumpkin.
When this comes up for a vote, I shall be voting "Yes".
|
mdw
|
|
response 2 of 255:
|
May 28 08:36 UTC 2000 |
Actually, it's not so easy to make responses go away. If they've been
there over a month they're very likely on backup tapes.
|
void
|
|
response 3 of 255:
|
May 28 13:12 UTC 2000 |
even so, scribbling them stops the items' continued publication.
unless, of course, the backup tapes are available in some publicly
readable format unknown to most grexers.
|
mary
|
|
response 4 of 255:
|
May 28 13:39 UTC 2000 |
No.
Allowing folks to permanently remove their text, after it has become part
of the dialogue, encourages them to act in an irresponsible manner. It
will foster conferences filled with holes, do nothing to resolve any
differences of opinion, and might even bring new weapons to those very
few who are looking to cause trouble by allowing them to make,
essentially, drive-by verbal assaults. Yuck.
The way things stand now there is a problem with folks not realizing
how permanent their text is but that's about as broken as it gets.
I agree we should make it clearer how the scribble/expurgate commands
work.
|
robh
|
|
response 5 of 255:
|
May 28 14:59 UTC 2000 |
I will be voting "no" on this, for the same reasons that mary
stated in #4.
|
void
|
|
response 6 of 255:
|
May 28 15:58 UTC 2000 |
re resp:4: it does not and it will not. can you give one reason for
usurping control over users' text which does not boil down to, "this
will immediately lead to the worst possible scenario anyone can
imagine. besides, i like being able to sneakily read newbies' posts
that they think they have removed?" in all the debates over this issue
so far, i have not heard a single reason for keeping the present system
the way it is which does not basically mean one of the above, while
jmsaul has listed several valid reasons for changing it.
|