|
Grex > Coop12 > #57: Proposal: Users shall be able to withdraw their text | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 168 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 14 of 168:
| 
Oct 31 19:45 UTC 2001 |
but not entirely remove posted text, anyone with root could still read
a closed log right? if you are going to close the log, why have it all
|
polygon
|
|
response 15 of 168:
|
Oct 31 20:14 UTC 2001 |
I'm in favor of removal, but not of editing. If you want to modify what
you wrote, you can post a new version as a new response.
Richard, I can't take your argument seriously. There are going to be times
when it will be necessary for staff to know what happened. It is not the
same as having the censored log open to the public.
|
styles
|
|
response 16 of 168:
|
Oct 31 21:46 UTC 2001 |
um, "closing" the censor log, if it is at all like yapp's scribbling, writes
data over top of the data that was there first, thus making it closed to
anyone, even roots.
|
richard
|
|
response 17 of 168:
|
Oct 31 21:58 UTC 2001 |
#16..very interesting, if that is the case it serves the same purpose
but are censor logs backed up regularly?
|
styles
|
|
response 18 of 168:
|
Oct 31 22:05 UTC 2001 |
i assume you mean on grex. if so, i have no idea.
if you mean m-net, no, as they are part of regular bbs logs, and whenever bbs
logs get backed up, the scribbled posts (which are part of those logs, or
rather items in a specific conference directory) are just like regular posts,
except they have crap scribbled over top of the original post.
|
krj
|
|
response 19 of 168:
|
Oct 31 22:08 UTC 2001 |
"closing the censored/scribble log" was, as far as I could recollect,
describing depermitting it so the public could not read it.
I'm trying to avoid technical terminology as much as possible because
I think overly technical language about file permissions is part
of what caused this proposal to lose last time.
Styles, you'll have to elaborate on your resp:16 more. When M-net
"closed" its censored log, it was still running Picospan and
the change was just a change in file permissions, to the best of
my knowledge. If Yapp doesn't keep a readable log of censored
items, why would it keep a useless copy of the item?
|
styles
|
|
response 20 of 168:
|
Oct 31 22:16 UTC 2001 |
the response gets scribbled, not the item. if, for instance, i went back and
scribbled 16, the rest of the item would be here.
i was not around when m-net used picospan, so i can't offer anything useful.
|
aruba
|
|
response 21 of 168:
|
Oct 31 22:26 UTC 2001 |
I think the wording "closing the scribble log" is too confusing, Ken. I
think you can be clearer without using technical language. (BTW, "scribble"
is very technical, and lots of members probably have no clue what it means,
even those thast use Picospan.) I'm not sure how explanatory one is
permitted to be in a motion, but I suggest:
Users are currently able to remove text they have posted from the
conferencing system, but a copy is saved in a particular file which is
readable by everyone. This proposal would be implemented by making that
file readable only by the Grex staff.
|
krj
|
|
response 22 of 168:
|
Oct 31 22:27 UTC 2001 |
OK. Forgive me if I'm being too basic here. In picospan, when an
item or a response is censored/scribbled, a plain copy of the
censored/scribbled text is saved to a file /usr/bbs/censored (or
something like that). Today, on Grex, that file-- the log of
censored/scribbled responses -- is world-readable.
(You can probably find the ideological reasoning for this in
item:55. It's a historic part of Ann Arbor conferencing.)
M-net worked the same way when it ran Picospan, and when M-net's board
voted to close the censored log, all that happened was that the
permissions on the log file were changed. The objective of my
proposal is to depermit that log file on Grex.
I don't know if
the censored/scribbled mechanism under YAPP logs the affected text.
|
krj
|
|
response 23 of 168:
|
Oct 31 22:28 UTC 2001 |
(people are slipping in left and right.)
|
krj
|
|
response 24 of 168:
|
Oct 31 22:29 UTC 2001 |
Mark, thanks, I like your implementation language, it is better
than mine.
|
janc
|
|
response 25 of 168:
|
Nov 1 04:44 UTC 2001 |
I've seen a few instances of "accidental self-censorship" on Backtalk systems.
Backtalk puts a "erase" button next to most of your postings. I've seen some
users who seemed to have triggered some rather poorly designed program that
tries to download an entire website while reading backtalk. The program
happily explored all links, including all the "erase" links on all the items
in the conference. I've only seen this twice, and never on Grex, but it could
theoretically still happen. This is one of many cases where it would be nice
to have a non-publically readable backup copy of any censored text.
Grex staff's handling of such non-public log files would be pretty similar
to it's handling of other non-public information. See
http://www.grex.org/staffnote/privacy.html for some discussion of this.
I approve of this proposal.
|
eeyore
|
|
response 26 of 168:
|
Nov 1 05:35 UTC 2001 |
Mary (way back there): I see no use for the current scribble log to exist,
and I would have no problems with booting it out the door. However, I really
think that once the scribbled log is gone, there should be no more scribbling.
None of this "I don't like, let me erase and try again even though a bunch
of people have already read it" crap. You posted it, deal with it.
And before somebody asks the question, the answer is no, I've never used
scribble in the 7 years I've been on Grex.
|
other
|
|
response 27 of 168:
|
Nov 1 09:44 UTC 2001 |
My first preference would be to remove the option in the software which
allows removal of text previously posted.
If that is too blatantly illegal (which I believe it *could* be in some
cases but is not universally so), then my second preference would be to
continue to allow removal of previously posted text exactly as now
implemented, with the sole exception being that the log of removed text
be readable only by staff.
I absolutely will not support, and do vehemently oppose, any proposal
which allows previously posted text to be removed permanently and
absolutely, as I believe that it is essential to Grex's legal defense to
maintain a complete record, in some form, of what has been posted on it.
Given this position, I believe the best solution is as follows (submitted
as amendment to the standing proposal):
The option of removing previously posted content from the Grex
conferences shall be completely disabled in the Agora and Coop
conferences, and for any item linked to either one. In all other
conferences, the option shall be maintained, and the log of such removals
be made readable only to Grex staff.
In the event that a user wishes to remove text posted to either
Agora, Coop or any item linked thereto, said user may request staff to
remove the text in question so long as the request is made from the
account which posted the text, and, to the best of the ability of the
staff to determine, so long as the person using that account is the same
person who was using it when the text was posted. Upon such request, if
at least three staff members agree to the removal, then the text in
question may be removed, with the removed text being entered in the log
file to which only the staff have read access.
The board of directors may at any time, by majority vote of a quorum
or more held in person, or either online or by email but within a 72 hour
period, vote to remove any text from Agora or Coop or any item linked
thereto, even if such text has not been approved for removal by at least
three staff members. In all cases the removed text shall be entered into
the aforementioned log.
|
remmers
|
|
response 28 of 168:
|
Nov 1 12:02 UTC 2001 |
<remmers dons his voteadm hat>
Since this is a formal proposal by a member, here's a quick review
of the timeline: Proposals are discussed for a minimum of two weeks.
If after that time the proposer wants to proceed to a member vote,
he or she submits a final wording, and an online vote takes place
over a period of ten days. Since Ken posted this item on October
31, voting could start as early as November 14, or as soon
thereafter as he decides on final wording.
(See Section 5 of the Bylaws in Item 2 (item:coop,2) for the
official wording.)
</hat off>
|
mary
|
|
response 29 of 168:
|
Nov 1 12:28 UTC 2001 |
I doubt Ken will accept those friendly amendments, Eric. I could
be wrong but I doubt it. ;-)
What I'd like to see happen is for Ken's motion to go forward. It would
stipulate users be able to edit and/or remove their posted text. If that
*fails* then I'll foster a second vote, one stipulating the removal of the
scribble command and essentially not giving users the ability to change
the record (after being clearly advised of this policy).
Of course, anyone could take the initiative here. It's just that I'm
promising to do so if Ken's motion fails.
|
mary
|
|
response 30 of 168:
|
Nov 1 12:30 UTC 2001 |
Thanks for the clarification, Meg. I thought that was what you meant.
|
krj
|
|
response 31 of 168:
|
Nov 1 14:32 UTC 2001 |
Meg and Eric sound like they want to be endorsing the proposal
Mary made in item:55.
|
jp2
|
|
response 32 of 168:
|
Nov 1 15:07 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 33 of 168:
|
Nov 1 15:51 UTC 2001 |
Sounds like a variation on "If I don't get my way, I'll take my ball and go
home". More like "If I don't get my way, I'll punch a hole in the ball so
nobody else can play."
|
jp2
|
|
response 34 of 168:
|
Nov 1 15:52 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 35 of 168:
|
Nov 1 16:44 UTC 2001 |
Jamie, do you see yourself as administering a kind of vigilante justice
toward Grex?
|
jp2
|
|
response 36 of 168:
|
Nov 1 17:06 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 37 of 168:
|
Nov 1 17:22 UTC 2001 |
(Translation from M-Net language: "I don't want to commit to an actual
answer".)
|
slynne
|
|
response 38 of 168:
|
Nov 1 17:50 UTC 2001 |
OooOOooo Scott. You are getting the hang of the short mean little
response. Are you sure you dont want to join us over on Mnet? ;)
|