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.

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.)

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.

response 169 of 624:

Jan 3 01:41 UTC 1997

Hee hee.  :)

I like Mary's response.

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.

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 =})

response 175 of 624:

Jan 3 04:38 UTC 1997

An amazing amount of ridiculous stuff is being said in this item by people
on both sides.

The question is "how much access should we give to people before they
register?"  We all understand that registration is quick, easy, and
doesn't make a person any less anonymous than they used to be.

Grex does not become a closed system if we require people to register first.
That's absurd.  This issue does not make sense as an "open access" issue.

Users do not become anonymous just because they haven't registered.  That's
absurd too.  This issue does not make sense as an "anonymity" issue either.

If there is anything to discuss here it is about weighing "ease of access"
against "sense of closure".

The pro side is about making it easier to sample Grex from the web.  People
will be able to look at the conferences much more easily.  People will be
able to put links on pages anywhere in the internet that say things like

        Click here to see a cool poem Brighn posted on Grex.

The con side is concerned about the blurring of boundaries that leads to.
Currently the is a clear mental difference to posting something to the
poetry conference and posting it to your web page.  If links like the example
above proliferate, then of course people will feel that Grex is more of a web
page than a community.  There is a justifiable concern that Grex will blur 
into the World Wide Web instead of remaining a unique place.  The
difference between the two depends on how people think about it, not on any
hard facts or logical arguments.  And how people think about a place has
a lot to do with how they (and others) enter it.

response 177 of 624:

Jan 3 06:03 UTC 1997

I have read the last few days worth of posts, and I am of the same opinion.
The only thing anonymous web reading does is enlarge the "gallery" where
anyone in the world can come and visit. This is like enlarging the seating
in the Town Hall where town meetings are held and anyone can speak about
anything, and anyone can listen. I have considered carefully the opposing
arguments, but they do not seem to me to have enough substance to change my
opinion. Does brushing a visitor with newuser sauce really make them somehow
different? I don't believe it does. 

response 179 of 624:

Jan 3 07:11 UTC 1997

Gosh, Jan just gets smarter and smarter . . . 8^)  

I think that this issue is one about a sense of community.  The 
tendency for people to share their thoughts with their community 
is inversely proportional to the size of the community.  People 
are more likely to gab with a couple of friends than they are to 
gab with a lecture hall full of people.  And people who would 
normally feel free to give a speech to a lecture hall are less 
likely to want to give a speech that will be scrutinized by 
millions of television viewers.  

I wonder if Grex's conferences will become more like Usenet news
groups if we start to eliminate our sense of "place" . . . 

response 181 of 624:

Jan 3 07:50 UTC 1997

Woof.  >2000 lines here.  I know I saw interesting stuff scroll by in
responses #1-77, but I don't think there's much point for me to go back
& look.

I am definitely a bit unhappy with the idea people would use the
argument of "threatening to leave" if they don't get their way.  That
may honestly be their feeling, and it obviously indicates they feel
pretty deeply about it, but I don't think the threat itself is a valid
argument.  I do think the last sentence of #178 is in very poor taste.
I hope its author will either clarify it or withdraw it.  It sounds like
a threat against the very concept of a member-run system, which is
definitely most inappropriate.

Nevertheless, I can't say that I'm particularly in favor of anonymous
web reading of conferences.  I was also not in favour of "anonymous
guest access", as I'm sure people will remember.  I think Jan in #118
does a very good job of introducing some of the problems I think this
would introduce.  I'll see if I can't find a different way to explore
the same problems.

Let's see, Rane in #177 asks if "brushing a visitor with newuser sauce
really makes them somehow different?".  I think the answer is actually
"yes!"  It's all a perception problem, which may explain why some people
are having trouble seeing this.  So here's a different way to look at
it.  Suppose you were throwing a party, for a bunch of people you didn't
know at all well, and a few of your friends.  Suppose, at the door, you
handed paper sacks to *all* of the strangers, and instructed them to
wear those over their heads, and told them not to say anything, but to
feel free to go hang out and listen in on any conversation they pleased.
A few of your friends *might* not mind having a faceless audience to
perform in front of.  *Most* of your friends will feel varying degrees
of uncomfortableness as random faceless blobs barge in on their
conversations.  The faceless blobs will also probably act rather
differently.  Most of them are likely to feel at least somewhat excluded
*even if* you told them ahead of time that they could go into a bathroom
and take off the bag if they wanted to participate.  However much it
migh seem like you've made it "easier" to participate, you've now
created a bi-modal system, with two interfaces that people have to
navigate instead of just one.  The result is that you will get a larger
permament population of "lurkers", and very few people willing to suffer
the 2nd hurdle of entering the bathroom and unmasking.  Naturally,
nobody but college psychology students would *ever* give a real life
party like this.  In fact, what *most* people do when they give a party
for a bunch of strangers, is to hand out name tags.  This is the real
life equivalent to Rane's "newuser sauce".

Of course, computer conferencing is different than real life.
Unfortunately, it's all in the wrong direction, so far as the "bag"
problem goes.  Without the "real life" cues, many people find it far
harder to feel confortable participating in a conference, and without
obvious signs of their presence, it's harder for other people to give
them even overt personal ascii cues that their participation would be
welcome.  This is one of the reasons you get more lurkers in computer
conferencing than you would get in a ftf party.  If we want to promote a
computer conferencing *community*, then I'm afraid to say that
"anonymous web browsing" of conferences is just completely the wrong way
to go.

response 183 of 624:

Jan 3 08:37 UTC 1997

Hmm... Marcus has a good point there.  I'll have to think about it.