|
Grex > Coop > #278: Grex Town Hall -- How do we move forward? |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 357 responses total. |
bellstar
|
|
response 12 of 357:
| 
Jun 16 22:34 UTC 2010 |
Sadly, "/b/ isn't your personal army." /g/, however, can promise users to
break new ground in raid organization and allow libertarian militias to roam
> Here at Grex, Everybody Gets Their Own Personal Army [of One]
|
bellstar
|
|
response 13 of 357:
|
Jun 16 22:35 UTC 2010 |
Ow sh*t I forgot the ;-)
|
kentn
|
|
response 14 of 357:
|
Jun 16 23:55 UTC 2010 |
I like the idea of editing posts. If we had someone who could change
backtalk reliably, we'd be in business for that as long as there were no
policy reason against editing (I'd assume if each user owns their own
responses such that they could delete them, they should also be able to
edit them). I've seen on some systems where a note is added to the post
to indicate when it was edited so that readers know it has been changed.
I'm not sure about the graphics. It would be neat in some respects,
but as soon as someone starts posting images that will get Grex in
trouble with the law, then we'd need to start moderating responses,
which doesn't sound good.
|
keesan
|
|
response 15 of 357:
|
Jun 17 00:06 UTC 2010 |
Can you already link to images at other sites?
|
kentn
|
|
response 16 of 357:
|
Jun 17 00:15 UTC 2010 |
Obviously, you can cut and paste links to other sites in a conference
response but the conferencing software doesn't interpret those links to,
say, display an image.
|
tod
|
|
response 17 of 357:
|
Jun 17 00:21 UTC 2010 |
re #14
I like the idea of editing posts.
That's called CENSORSHIP.
|
slynne
|
|
response 18 of 357:
|
Jun 17 01:01 UTC 2010 |
The only issue I can see with allowing users to edit their previous
posts is that sooner or later some troublemaker is going to go edit it
their posts in such a way as to make it seem like responses to the
original post were in response to the original post.
I might enter an item entitled 'HOw many joints have you smoked this
year?' and most everyone will say zero. Then I could change it to 'How
many times have you had sex this year?' har har. But people could make
others look dumb. The only solution would be to cut and paste the
original post into the response which opens up a whole nuther can of
worms.
|
kentn
|
|
response 19 of 357:
|
Jun 17 01:26 UTC 2010 |
Hmm...editing your own words? I guess deleting your response is
censorship then? Censorship is done by others to your words, not by you
to your own words (unless you want to call it self-censorship, but as
the owner of your own words you can do what you want with them).
What should we do then? Put back all the posts that people deleted
because they were owner?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 20 of 357:
|
Jun 17 02:08 UTC 2010 |
re 17: Maybe some of us like censorship you hippy!
|
kentn
|
|
response 21 of 357:
|
Jun 17 02:45 UTC 2010 |
This response has been erased.
|
kentn
|
|
response 22 of 357:
|
Jun 17 02:51 UTC 2010 |
See? I need to edit #21. I guess I should delete it and enter it
again. What a pain.
|
kentn
|
|
response 23 of 357:
|
Jun 17 03:02 UTC 2010 |
The thing is, if you can delete your own response and enter it again
in edited form, then you've well...edited it. Why not make that one
step instead of two?
|
slynne
|
|
response 24 of 357:
|
Jun 17 03:40 UTC 2010 |
When you do it that way, it is very clear which responses occurred
before the edit and which after.
|
tod
|
|
response 25 of 357:
|
Jun 17 04:16 UTC 2010 |
re #20
Once the censors are allow then all tha twill be left ar Roman tax cllecorsz!
|
sholmes
|
|
response 26 of 357:
|
Jun 17 04:50 UTC 2010 |
editing can be allowed for a short time after posting (say an hour or two)
and after that the only way left would be to delete and re-enter.
|
tsty
|
|
response 27 of 357:
|
Jun 17 06:01 UTC 2010 |
wb sholmes ... good #26 . bu ti;d limit the edit capability until there is
anohter repsonse following .... following resp might refer to prev and then
alowng edit of prev WoulD lead to endless confusion.
|
richard
|
|
response 28 of 357:
|
Jun 17 07:04 UTC 2010 |
re #26 Yeah many boards that are out there let people edit posts for up
to an hour or two after the post was made. I know that when Backtalk
was first installed that Janc, who wrote it, said the edit function was
in the program, that he wanted to have it as a function, but that staff
objected to its use on grex just as they had objected years earlier to
having an edit function with picospan which clearly could have been
done. It seems the objection was that it would give too much power to
the trolls. If grex was like a newspaper, well once the newspaper is
printed you can't edit an article that is in it. When you hit 'enter'
you are in effect publishing your post just like an article. I think
giving posters a window of time to edit their posts is not going to
empower trolls.
|
richard
|
|
response 29 of 357:
|
Jun 17 07:14 UTC 2010 |
Another thing that could be done to get more users to Grex is a
web-based party/chat program. I'm one of the few left on here who
remembers when the 'Party' program, Grex's chat program, was a vital
part of Grex. It used to be a place where people gathered day and night
to interact in real time. Unfortunately grex's party program is not
used anymore because it is only accessible via telnet or dial-in and
nobody telnets or dials in anymore. It is now a useless program. I
want to see a web based chat program.
This is nothing that hasn't been discussed before. One could have been
put in back when backtalk was installed as part of the programming. But
again then staff objected it would bring too much traffic to grex and
anybody who wanted to chat could telnet or dial in and use the old
program. Times have changed. You either take a chance on these things
or whats the point of continuing? I would love to see a web-based chat
service on Grex. I believe that when Party died on Grex it hastened the
dying of Grex altogether.
|
lar
|
|
response 30 of 357:
|
Jun 17 13:56 UTC 2010 |
bellstar is a trip,I wish his ass would come back to m-net
|
kentn
|
|
response 31 of 357:
|
Jun 17 14:10 UTC 2010 |
What I had suggested for editing was that a note could be added to the
post to show that it had been edited (e.g. when the last edit occurred,
as multiple edits would be possible in the time window). Thus the
objection to not knowing a post had been edited can be worked around.
Allowing a period of time for edits is also a reasonable idea. That
would allow people to take care of typos. Later the only choice would
be to delete the entire response. Or at least, that's one way we could
implement editing.
Encouraging trolls? How about encouraging participation? How about we
try some ideas and see how they work? Right now we're just coasting
along and griping.
Web-based chat sounds interesting to me, as well. I don't think we are
as bound by bandwidth or system resource issues as we were 10 years ago.
As always, aside from having a clear idea of how we'd want that to work,
we'd also need someone to implement it.
If we are fortunate enough to attract many new users, we can talk
about improving the hardware to support applications that are using
significant system resources.
Try to find ways to make things work. Don't try so hard to shoot down
ideas.
|
lar
|
|
response 32 of 357:
|
Jun 17 14:14 UTC 2010 |
just need to a bbs that uses php...vbulletin or some shit like that
|
kentn
|
|
response 33 of 357:
|
Jun 17 15:28 UTC 2010 |
There's modifying our current bbs and there's switching to something
else. Both should be considered, I think. In the short term we might
need to go with modifications to backtalk, but if we had someone with
the expertise to install and set up a new conferencing system, we'd have
a better chance of trying that out. Anyway, it sounds like something we
could experiment with, if only to see how it looks and operates, and how
much maintenance is involved.
|
jgelinas
|
|
response 34 of 357:
|
Jun 17 19:56 UTC 2010 |
(NB: grex's users, not its staff, have objected to the editing of posts
and other 'improvements.')
|
kentn
|
|
response 35 of 357:
|
Jun 17 21:43 UTC 2010 |
Users or members? And just objections or a member vote? How
many did not object?
|
jgelinas
|
|
response 36 of 357:
|
Jun 19 18:10 UTC 2010 |
It was not a vote. There has been extensive discussion of the matter
over the years. Richard remembers "the staff" objecting, and I remember
just about everyone objecting.
No big deal. The question is, "What do people want to do _now_?"
|