|
Grex > Coop7 > #106: Retiring the ID of someone who has died | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 326 responses total. |
lilmo
|
|
response 125 of 326:
| 
Oct 8 18:46 UTC 1995 |
Re #120: As I said, (sort of) in my last post, there is a difference between
changing the appearance (login) of a person, and changing the person of an
appearance (login) !!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 126 of 326:
|
Oct 10 06:16 UTC 1995 |
Re #101: I hardly tried to "put words into staff's mouth" - I wasn't even
referring to staff (they should stay out of it "officially", anyway). I
was suggesting an approach. I do realize that my civil language is
archaic, so here is a suggestion for an alternative expression:
"Hey dude, your login's rad, but this here chick, y'know, who checked out,
was a cool kid we dug, so's when we see it, we just natcherly think of
her. But hey, this's a cool place, y'know, and you'll fit right in, so
we're cool too, y'know?"
Re #105: brighn offered an alternative response (type), but I thought it
intentionally tried to intimidate the user ("People are likely to be upset
at seeing it."). Why should anyone presume to make that personal
judgement? It's an attitude like that that led me to see such responders
being "busybodies". If we are welcoming here, we do not try to impose
*our* personal responses to other people's names (race, religion,
ethnicity, sexual preferences, login ids, etc) upon them.
|
scg
|
|
response 127 of 326:
|
Oct 10 07:23 UTC 1995 |
I agree with Rane on some level that negative responses to a reused login
shouldn't happen, but I don't think it will help us at all to get so caught
up in our idealism that we lose track of reality. If Rane can find a way to
get everybody on Grex to behave rationally at all times, without clamping
down on the openness of the system, I'll be amazed.
|
iggy
|
|
response 128 of 326:
|
Oct 10 13:02 UTC 1995 |
heh.. i guess that assumes that there are rational people in the first place.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 129 of 326:
|
Oct 10 13:17 UTC 1995 |
Re 126: I don't think #101 was refering to your response 100.
I think it was a response to #99, where kerouac claims that staff
has made some particular decisions that staff has *not* in fact made.
|
steve
|
|
response 130 of 326:
|
Oct 10 16:53 UTC 1995 |
Valerie is right. Didn't mean to aim that at you, Rane(!).
I think this is the most contentious issue we've ever discussed
here.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 131 of 326:
|
Oct 10 17:46 UTC 1995 |
Re #127: I don't think I've lost track of reality, Steve. I was making a
suggestion for users in general (whether they like it or not I cannot
control), but have also tried to say that *Grex* should be able to make
rational decisions and adopt rational policies. And certainly, I have not
made any suggestions here that would tend to limit the openness of the
system - quite the contrary, I've been arguing for openness.
Re #130: contentious? well, differences of opinion, to be sure, but isn't
that what conferencing is meant to expose? Seems to me that Grex is
functioning precisely as intended, in this issue.
|
selena
|
|
response 132 of 326:
|
Oct 10 18:23 UTC 1995 |
Making a suggestion to alter behavior is *not* going to change
99% of the users here, rane! I think steve pegged it right- idealism
is cool, but rose-colored glasses aren't.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 133 of 326:
|
Oct 11 05:09 UTC 1995 |
Rane, you are making normative judgements about the actions of the general
public of Grex that no one here disagrees with. However, the rest of us are
attempting to determine what *Grex* should do, GIVEN that ppl are not going to
conform with the normative judgement that we here agree upon.
Frankly, had I been aware that this situation could have occurred, *I* would
have logged regularly into mlady, even w/o ANY knowledge of who Barbara was,
b/c of what both Debra and Barbara's friends have gone through, if that was
the only way to prevent it. Okay, ppl acted irresposibly: so what? Ppl will
ALWAYS act irresponsibly. It's no skin off our (collective) nose to take a
few more logins out of circulation, and the benefit to those who would be
otherwise adversely affected is immeasurable.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 134 of 326:
|
Oct 11 05:17 UTC 1995 |
But that is inherently unfair. Either *all* abandoned logins should be
retired, or none should be. There is no fair way to make selective
decisions about individual cases.
Except, that is, that a person's *heirs* (or the Probate Court)
has control over the disposition of the "property" of persons that
have died, which includes all their written works, which includes
their login id. This was discussed at length in a previous coop, so
I'm surprised it hasn't come up again until now.
|
selena
|
|
response 135 of 326:
|
Oct 11 05:36 UTC 1995 |
Rane- You're being extreme. We don't need a black and white here.
|
iggy
|
|
response 136 of 326:
|
Oct 11 12:37 UTC 1995 |
i think he was just trying to be fair.
|
steve
|
|
response 137 of 326:
|
Oct 11 15:38 UTC 1995 |
Thats the fundemental difference between us Rane--you see the issue
of logins as an absolute, and I (as well as others) don't.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 138 of 326:
|
Oct 11 15:57 UTC 1995 |
The reason there is controversy in the first place is due entirely
to logins being non-absolute, yet very important identifiers, all at
once. Fairness in these situations must be determined individually.
|
anne
|
|
response 139 of 326:
|
Oct 11 16:43 UTC 1995 |
Just thought I would add my own comments.. I am all for the retring
of logins of people that have died. I was first told about mlady
before I saw her, and I was taken by suprise. I haven't actually
gotten to talk to her, but that's kind of irrelevant. Over at m-net
there was a user with the login cutter that died. The staff put his
name on their version of immortals I guess, and to keep him from being
reaped someone logs him in and then back out again. This was done out
of respect for the dead, and for his friends. I think that's a good policy
to maintain.
I'm one of those people that doesn't just see logins as letters forming
words- they represent a person. A real person, there is someone on
the other side of the keyboard, and if that person were to die- I
wouldn't want someone else to take that name. I see names in general
as being a hell of a lot more then just letters. They are the people.
Just becuase the original mlady didn't participate in coop does not
mean she wasn't important here. I wasn't that good a friend of hers but
I was very saddened at her death.
This is a computer system- but let's not turn all cold and analytical-
there are PEOPLE here! People who have feelings, and those feelings
should not be disregarded.
Oh, and about net relationships= there is an item in the oathbound
conference that addresses that... So, if you would like, please tkae
the conversation there.
<anne steps off the soapbox and prepares for the response>
|
rcurl
|
|
response 140 of 326:
|
Oct 11 17:14 UTC 1995 |
And who is to determine when it is fair to reserve a login, and when
it is not? No, I am not an absolutist - I even suggested earlier
that a vote be conducted on retiring a login. I would vote NO every
time, but others would vote NO sometimes and YES other times (and
anne would vote YES every time). This procedure would determine
fairness individually, as sidhe suggests.
On the other hand, how can one have a fixed policy unless it is
absolutist, and be fair (as iggy points out)?
So, anne, since you see names as more than just letters, etc - shall
we retire the names George, and Washington (and I could list a few
others that have died)? You would have to say that some names are
more sacred than others, but I see no basis for that. What society
does do with names it deems sacred is attach them to hardware - like
Grant's Tomb, or Washinton's Monument. I wouldn't object naming our
hardware after users that have died - we have 11 modems, which should
last us a while - but I do think this too would have to be done by a
vote, to determine which dead person is deserving, and which is not.
_A Modem Called Rane_....hmmmm, sounds very distinguished.
|
steve
|
|
response 141 of 326:
|
Oct 11 20:02 UTC 1995 |
Rane, George Washington died a long time ago, and was never on Grex
to start with. Mlady on the other hand, *was* here, and people did know
her. Thats the difference, and it is huge.
If we found out that someone who had an account here died, and that
account had been reaped some time ago, I wouldn't push for its retirement.
But someone who was *actively* using the system is a different case.
Given that this has happened only 4 or 5 times during M-Net's
existence, I think we can fairly well assume close to that frequency
here on Grex. Thus the one person we've had die here is something of
a rare occurance and we aren't setting some precedence that we'll have
to deal with hundreds of times anytime soon, if ever.
I admire your puzzlement with others notions about death Rane.
Ultimately, I think people *should* take your view of things, but
they don't. And since they don't, I can clearly see the reasons
for login retirement, rare as they are.
|
anne
|
|
response 142 of 326:
|
Oct 11 20:30 UTC 1995 |
Rane- my statement about names being more then just letters was more
along the thought that there are people behind them... that what i
see on the screen comes from a person on the other end- not just
a bunch of letters grouped together to mean something. I don't
think that some names are more sacred then others- I don't have a
problem with naming someone George. This is a little different then
that... There are people out there in cyberland with emotions, and
they can easily get attached to the friends that they make. Out of
respect for them- and the dead- is the reason for retiring logins.
Out of all the possible logins, I don't think retiring one would make
that much a difference at all- or even if grex retired 50, I don't
think that would significantly impact login choice.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 143 of 326:
|
Oct 12 05:20 UTC 1995 |
That's like saying, retire the name anne when you pop off. There are lots
of other names, and who would miss anne? Don't you see that, if a name is
retired, it will in the end by *forgotten*? The only way to remember a
person is to keep their name in use - even if someone else is the carrier
of it. Then you are reminded, if you cared. Burying a name is really the
absolute reverse of what those that want names to be memorials should
seek. Most cultures show reverence for persons they honor by adopting
their names, not by burying them.
|
remmers
|
|
response 144 of 326:
|
Oct 12 11:09 UTC 1995 |
Good point. I often disagree with Rane, but I'm with him on this one.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 145 of 326:
|
Oct 12 11:53 UTC 1995 |
Re #141: No, steve, I must disagree with you. The difference is NOT that
GW was never on, near, or around Grex, the difference is in the CONCEPTS of
name versus login. logins and names are NOT analogous. logins are virtual
bodies, with names to got with them. Your name is STeve Andre', your unique
identifier is steve@cyberspace.org. There is none like you in that respect,
although I am sure there are a few Steve Andre's around, (or could be). Names
repeat, we all know that, but logins ARE and SHOULD BE unique, in the same
sense that bodies are.
If I saw someone walking around that I thought was dead, I would be more than
somewhat taken aback. Similarly for the login of someone I know that had died
|
katie
|
|
response 146 of 326:
|
Oct 12 13:14 UTC 1995 |
>>logins ARE and SHOULD BE unique, in the same sense that bodies are.
They aren't unique, and why should they be?
|
iggy
|
|
response 147 of 326:
|
Oct 12 15:32 UTC 1995 |
i guess #2 was long forgotten. ;-P
|
rcurl
|
|
response 148 of 326:
|
Oct 12 15:41 UTC 1995 |
I have or have had dozens of different logins - they are about as unique
as my toothbrushes. Actually, I save the old ones for scrubbing up clock
parts and tools, but if anyone would like to preserve them for me, I will
donate some - if they will be gold plated for posterity.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 149 of 326:
|
Oct 12 15:43 UTC 1995 |
#147 slipped in. iggy, you know we go around and around and around... 8^P
|