|
Grex > Coop9 > #27: Motion: To allow anonymous reading via Backtalk | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 624 responses total. |
e4808mc
|
|
response 150 of 624:
| 
Jan 2 06:46 UTC 1997 |
I read several conferences anonymously (as an observer). A friend of mine
who is only a participant in Agora and Coop reads many conferences as an
observer. How is this "observing" different from webbrowsing? No one in the
conferences can ever find out which ones we have observed, and what we have
done with the material found there. How much more "anonymous" can you get?
Over Christmas, I showed someone how to telnet in and observe [s/he was a
*real* privacy freak] without ever joining any conference.
Are we going to disallow this? Or is this a "user" perk that is only allowed
to people with logins?
|
scg
|
|
response 151 of 624:
|
Jan 2 07:21 UTC 1997 |
The "compromise" of having only Agora and Intro available to people on teh
web is still a huge retreat form the openness that Grex has had for years.
I don't like that idea much more than I like the idea of locking out
everything. What is Grex for, if not to be able to share our thoughts with
a wide variety of people?
|
robh
|
|
response 152 of 624:
|
Jan 2 08:28 UTC 1997 |
Re 150 - Since running newuser is such a trivial task (as just
about everyone here has conceded), I don't see why asking people
to register before observing the conferences is a big deal.
Check out my earlier response about symbolic gestures, if you
haven't seen it already.
|
remmers
|
|
response 153 of 624:
|
Jan 2 11:24 UTC 1997 |
Steve Gibbard makes excellent points in responses 134, 143, and
151, as does Catriona Davis in 150. They sum up my viewpoint to
a tee. Rather than try to add anything myself, I'll just
recommend that people re-read them.
Bringing the issue to a vote would at least mean that it would
be decided by one-member-one-vote rather than who can talk the
loudest and longest.
|
scott
|
|
response 154 of 624:
|
Jan 2 12:06 UTC 1997 |
I agree with scg.
At the risk of being irratating, why does willingness to talk a lot make
someone's arguments stronger?
|
kerouac
|
|
response 155 of 624:
|
Jan 2 16:44 UTC 1997 |
This goes to the question of whether the Fair Witness *owns* a conference.
I think there are plenty of people who post in poetry who would want or
wouldnt mind people reading their stuff anonymously.
I do not think it falls within the rights of the Fair Witness to censor
other people's posts. But as I have stated before, I believe the author
of an item should have control of that item.
Therefore, I think a compromise would be that anonymous readers should be
able to read all conferences, *but* the authors of individual items should
have the option of closing that particular item to outside access. So if
Jenna wants to enter a particularly sensitive poem, she can limit access
to it to only those who belong to the conf.
This would require some coding, but basically I'm thinking of changing:
"ok to enter this item?"
to
"ok to enter this item for universal access?" (y/n)
then
"ok to enter this item for access to members of this conf only?"
This gives control over access to the author of the item, who in my
opinion is the only person who should be allowed to make that decision.
|
babozita
|
|
response 156 of 624:
|
Jan 2 18:02 UTC 1997 |
I think if one side i willing to compromise, the other side should to.
I don't see why you people are having such a hard time seeing our perspective,
when I have no trouble seeing yours.
And yes, I think observer mode should be disabled. Especially since it's not
one of the options that comes up when you type j CONF. That makes observer
mode a special trick that only veterans are likely to know.
A compromise is another sort of symbolic gesture, Rob, clearly these people
care more about their own viewpoints than symbolic gestures. I read that to
mean that they care more about potential users than current users. Since
current users have already (for the most part) made it clear whether they're
likely to be paying members or not, it seems that they care more about
potential paying members than current nonpaying users.
Which means that there's a profit motive.
Which means that there's a potential copyright infringement.
(Yes, kids, don't try to tell me that NPOs can't have profit motives.)
It's been clear to me that this has been about increasing member base all
along. User base doesn't need an increase, not when there's a queue 23 hours
a day during non-holiday times. Legal threats alone, if this is about member
base increases, and stomping all over current (non-paying) users (who besides
robh on this side of the fence currently pays dues? who on the other side of
the fence doesn't?) to increase user base in order to increase member base,
than this is inimical to Grex's goal of not treating non-member users
differently than members.
If this isn't about membership, then a symbolic gesture would be to open this
proposal vote alone up to all users, not just verified members.
If this is about membership, then maybe y'all should just say you think
members should have more rights than non-members. Which is what two of you
have already said to me privately anyhow.
|
babozita
|
|
response 157 of 624:
|
Jan 2 18:03 UTC 1997 |
(that "legal issues alone" should have been "legal issues aside")
|
dpc
|
|
response 158 of 624:
|
Jan 2 18:33 UTC 1997 |
Well, I'd vote for just opening Intro and Agora to non-registering
Web folks, *plus* posting a notice on the login screens of both
these conferences stating that anything may be viewed by people
who are not registered.
"Perception is reality." This is about perceptions--in
addition to on-line versus real-life personas. I confess that
I've never run a pseudo or pretended to be anyone else except
plain old (well, not *that* old) Dave Cahill. I don't think
the split is along age lines. Perhaps it's along mental-health
lines? (Just kidding.)
I also don't care for the posting of mail, but I would rather
not get into ad-hominem issues on any side.
|
jenna
|
|
response 159 of 624:
|
Jan 2 19:05 UTC 1997 |
Kerouac - there is a discussion of this in regards
ti Artistic work in the poetry conference.
Aside from Remmers, one person has expressed support for opening
it anonymously and about 6 have said they think a ompromise would
be a better idea. Go read it, jack.
--
Leaving intro and agora open would give peopole
a chance to sdee what its like here without making undue efffort.
Anyone who's really interested has every right to then make
an account, lik everybody else. I see this as a rational
compromise, whether or not we all understand each others reasons
for viewing the whole issue different.
(ly)
|
popcorn
|
|
response 160 of 624:
|
Jan 2 20:39 UTC 1997 |
Well, but I'd love to entice people from elsewhere on the net with cool
cooking discussions and recipes from the Cooking conference. I wouldn't be
at all surprised to see some proponents of the same thing for the music
conference. I'm not sure who would decide for each conference. But
personally, speaking as a Grex user, I *would* like to see those conferences
available to anybody on the web.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 161 of 624:
|
Jan 2 21:21 UTC 1997 |
And I'd want the politics conf open to everyone...but the question is
whether or not the FW should be the one to make that decision. Since
giving the FW that authority is highly arbirtrary, I think it is
infinitely fairer to leave it up to the authors of the invidiual items.
The author of an item should be able to:
1. Decide whether that item is open to anonymous reads
2. Decide whether that item is linkable to other confs
There is no reason an author of an item shouldnt be able to expurgate that
item from being read in observer mode either.
I think it would be a terrible compormise to limit anoonymous readers to
only the agora and intro confs.
In fact, as an FW, I would probably step aside from my conf if access to
it was restricted in any way. I dont yhave any interest in being part of
censored confs.
I think a lot of other fw's would feel the same way.
|
babozita
|
|
response 162 of 624:
|
Jan 2 21:21 UTC 1997 |
The question is clear: Would you rather have a proposal that satisfies some
of your desires and has an excellent chance of being passed, or would you
rather have a proposal that satisfies all of your desires and has a poor
chance of being passed? People who are unwilling to compromise generally lose
out altogether.
|
dang
|
|
response 163 of 624:
|
Jan 2 21:28 UTC 1997 |
I too can now understand the argument for not opening the cfs. However, I
still disagree. I use and support and donate my time to grex because it is
free and open. I support Grex becoming even more open. Completely. Paul:
Why should lack of willingness to compramize damn us? Because we feel as
strongly as you do about this issue, we are bad? You don't post "sensative"
material to agora, so you don't mind it being open. I post exactly what I
feel in every cf that I'm in. I care as much about what I post as you do.
I feel just as strongly that Grex should be open as you do that it shouldn't.
But I should compramize my feelings while you don't compramize yours? That
doesn't seem like a compramize to me. I'm sorry about the attacks, I don't
think people should use them, but someone on this side of the argument needs
to show the same emotion. (BTW, I'm young too.)
|
babozita
|
|
response 164 of 624:
|
Jan 2 21:36 UTC 1997 |
Dang, I HAVE compromised... I don't like having Intro andAgora open.
But I'm willing to go that far. And others are too.
I've said all I have to say and should say about this topic, and made a mess
of things. So I'll just leave it be now.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 165 of 624:
|
Jan 2 21:39 UTC 1997 |
Closing any confs changes GRex. It changes what Grex is. The
very nature of Grex requires that all confs be completely open. Deviating
from that in any way only opens the door to future "compromises"
Closing any confs from anonymous readers is as bad as closing themn
to those who are not membvres of that conf.
Grex would lose more users and members with this so called compromise
than itwould byt maintaining a consisten policy and keeping all the confs
open.
|
remmers
|
|
response 166 of 624:
|
Jan 2 23:28 UTC 1997 |
Speaking as a bureaucracy-loather, I sure hope that whatever
we do regarding web access to conferences, we preserve the
administrative simplicity that we always had "pre-web":
Basically, anybody who proposes a conference gets it, and once
the conference is created, it's open to all. No centralized
bureaucracy to evaluate proposals, no questions about who gets
access once it's created. I see suggestions of deciding web
accessibility on a conference-by-conference basis and shudder
at the administrative hassles and bureaucratic tedium that this
would entail. I'd really prefer to keep it simple and have the
same access methods available for all conferences.
My preference is still for allowing read-accessibility to all
conferences without having to take out an account, with posting
access requiring a grex login. As I and others have said before,
I think it would help attract more *participants* by making
it easier to have a look around before taking the plunge --
and I think people are exaggerating the dangers involved. If
that doesn't fly, guess I'll settle for what we have now.
There's a thread in some of the responses above that I find
disturbing: The notion that reading things on Grex should
somehow be traceable back to the reader. I see it in the
suggestion that "observer mode" should be eliminated entirely
or selectively, and in the notion that people reading Grex via
the web should be traceable "in case there's a problem."
Now, I happen to think that what I read is my own business.
When I go to browse in the library, I don't have to sign for
every book I browse. I also like the fact that when I go to a
concert or attend a poetry reading, nobody demands an identity
card or frisks me in case I have a tape recorder and plan to
steal stuff. I think that most people would find the thought
of those things happening to be repugnant. It's an invasion of
privacy and antithetical to living in a free society. Why is
it that we are slipping into a mode of thought where what we
would find repugnant in traditional settings is acceptable or
even desirable in the arena of electronic communication? Can
you say "Big Brother Is Watching You"?
|
valerie
|
|
response 167 of 624:
|
Jan 3 00:50 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 168 of 624:
|
Jan 3 01:06 UTC 1997 |
If Grex prides itself on being open and easily accessible, if that is one
of our stated objectives, then that is what we should be working at doing.
We shouldn't be willing to tweek that goal because it is uncomfortable
watching a few folks self-destruct. This issue should be decided based
on our stated goals and be consistent with other related policies.
Regarding letting individual fairwitnesses decide this issue... We
already have a number of fairwitnesses who think they "own their
conference". They have never owned conferences - they are housekeepers.
Everyone who reads and posts to a conference co-owns the conference. That
even includes folks who are reading without being listed in the
participation file. Sending FWs the message they can decide who can read
a conference would be sending the wrong message and potentiating this
misconception.
That I am aware of here I've not assailed brighn's character. I've
disagreed with his perceived need for a key to the conference doors. I've
spent probably too much time trying to find the logic in his arguments.
But I don't despise him or question his ethics. I'm still listening.
Sometimes with a smile on my face but I'm still listening. ;-)
Regarding brighn sending me hostile mail - it was inappropriate behavior
for an adult - so I simply and effectively cut it off. I'm sorry if his
words embarrassed him. But they were, after all, his words.
Are we having fun yet?
|
scott
|
|
response 169 of 624:
|
Jan 3 01:41 UTC 1997 |
Hee hee. :)
I like Mary's response.
|
robh
|
|
response 170 of 624:
|
Jan 3 01:43 UTC 1997 |
Oh sure, lying awake for a few hours a night, crying myself to
sleep, that's pure fun to me. How did I ever manage before this?
|
scott
|
|
response 171 of 624:
|
Jan 3 02:01 UTC 1997 |
<Sigh>
Item 34 is a nice example of how I can occasionally be goaded into shooting
my mouth off.
For the record, I am not prejudiced against non-members. I *am* rather angry
about the attitude of some non-members who would like to decide how Grex runs
without having to contribute anything of their own.
I could make some other points, but I'd prefer that we remain above the
"worst of M-net" level that some folks would like to see us sink to.
|
robh
|
|
response 172 of 624:
|
Jan 3 02:26 UTC 1997 |
(#170 was supposed to be a response to #168, scott slipped in
and PicoSpan didn't tell me.)
|
babozita
|
|
response 173 of 624:
|
Jan 3 02:28 UTC 1997 |
Um, contribute?
I've offered to verify users for Usenet in the past. That never happened, but
my offer was ignored.
I offered above to write an advertisement for Grex. That, too, was completely
ignored.
I have been a FW here.
I say nice things about Grex on other BBSs. Morgaene, for one, is here because
of me. So is Colene and a few others, though they're not active.
Contributing isn't just about giving money, Scott. I have given a LOT of good
press to Grex. I have volunteered. Maybe not as much as you, maybe not as much
as everyone else here, but don't you dare say for one minute that I have done
NOTHING and contributed NOTHING to Grex.
Mary> I sent a private mail. I f you don't want to receive mail, if receiving
and sending mail is somehow not adult, then put up mail filters. My words
did not embarass me. I thought they were off-topic, and since I didn't have
an on-topic post to put them as a rider to, I mailed them separately. It's
the way I do things. I don't consider it immature to avoid putting up
off-topic posts.
Everyone else> I've gotten way too tied up in this, and frankly I care less
about how this issue is resolved than I care about just staying the fuck out
of it. I indicated that the last post would be the end of it, but silly old
me couldn't keep his fingers out of the cookie jar. Ah well. I've grown to
become so disgusted with four particular users of Grex that if I read any more
of this conference I really *will* leave Grex. Since I don't wnat to leave
Grex, I will, finally, once and for all, shut up and leave this conference.
And for the children, I'll type it for you:
*scott cheers*
*scg says something as immature as brighn would say if brighn were saying it*
*john and mary continue to act nonplussed and emotionless*
(at the same time? ponderous =})
|
kerouac
|
|
response 174 of 624:
|
Jan 3 02:30 UTC 1997 |
The proposed compromise is unreasonable because it either places the
burden of deciding whicn confs are open on staff or on the fw's or
on the board. No one person owns a conference, in fact no group of
people do. A conf is the intellectual property of all who choose to
partake of it, reading or posting or fw'ing or whatever. Saying that
any one personor persons has the right to censor a conference is
stealing it from its rightful owners.
The proposed compromise would be the beginning of the end of grex. Once
one conf is closed or restricted for one reason, you have opened up the
floodgates. Grex only survives by being true to its principles and
never ever doing anything that changes the essence of what it is.
If only two conferences can be read anonymously, grex will never be
ableto say again that its conferencing system is free and open to
everyone to be read and used in the manner they please.
|