|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 299 responses total. |
cyklone
|
|
response 187 of 299:
| 
Apr 4 21:47 UTC 2005 |
Richard, you obviously have a problem with terminology. Yes, as a LEGAL
matter GOVERNMENT censorship is illegal and PRIVATE censorship is
permitted. This has been generally accepted knowledge on grex for quite
some time. However, censorship is still censorship, and it is hypocritical
to claim to oppose government censorship while supporting private
censorship.
You also have a problem with analogies. Grex is NOT the equivalent of the New
York Times. The NYT is clearly set up to publish only those views, stories
and letters approved or authorized by its owners. Grex has not previously
adopted that business model. Of course, you and some others seem hellbent on
heading in that direction. However, that is NOT what grex was originally
founded to be.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 188 of 299:
|
Apr 4 21:50 UTC 2005 |
One of the key things you're missing in that analogy is that the New York
Times warns you before you write to them that they reserve the right to edit
your letter to the editor for content or clarity.
I don't recall any such warning appearing in newuser.
Further, people writing a letter to the editor don't necessarily know that
it will be published in whole, or in part. On BBS's, there is an expectation
that what you post will be seen by all.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 189 of 299:
|
Apr 4 21:53 UTC 2005 |
Good points.
|
tod
|
|
response 190 of 299:
|
Apr 4 21:53 UTC 2005 |
re #185
Grex is a PRIVATE organization.
You're saying that Cyberspace is subject to excise taxes under Chapter 42?
You mean like a 509 instead of a 501? Please elaborate. This is intriguing.
|
richard
|
|
response 191 of 299:
|
Apr 4 22:03 UTC 2005 |
re #188 good point, I would say that prior to grex instituting such a
policy, it should make it clear in newuser that:
"grex is owned by cyberspace communications inc., a private company run
by the users of grex, and the board of cyberspace communications
reserves the right to make a few basic rules as to the content of posts
and enforce those rules. Such rules would be limited to excessive
flaming and excessive use of derogatory language"
|
richard
|
|
response 192 of 299:
|
Apr 4 22:24 UTC 2005 |
cyklone said:
" censorship is still censorship, and it is hypocritical
to claim to oppose government censorship while supporting private
censorship. "
No it is not, because public censorship and private censorship are two
different thigns. You can in fact be against public censorship, and at
the same time say that if someone is in your house, they can refrain from
saying certain things or leave. Because your house is YOUR domain and you
make the rules there. Cyberspace Communications provides Grex, for any
user to use, but it is their house and they can make rules here if they
want.
It is not, absolutely not, hypocritical to be against public censorship
and at the same time accept private establishments making private rules.
Grex will never prohibit you from expressing an idea, so it does not
censor, not in the broadest sense. If Grex says, "please use different
words to express those sentiments" that is more moderation than
censorship.
|
jep
|
|
response 193 of 299:
|
Apr 5 00:05 UTC 2005 |
I've skipped past a great deal of what was said in this item. I
presume there are 4 or 5 points, repeated 20 tuimes each, and so I
probably picked up those.
I'll say this, I don't recommend Grex to people any more. I don't have
many friends who would be interested in wading through it in order to
try to carry on a conversation. Occasionally, interesting discussion
still occurs here, but it's not the norm. I've been around long enough
to find it worthwhile to try to ferret it out. I don't expect many
others to want to do that.
I'll probably remain here as long as several others do so. And those
several others will probably do the same, until Grex degenerates to the
stage the old Arbornet system was at. (It had 5 total users when it
merged with M-Net.)
Honestly, I think it's too late for Grex, just as it's too late for M-
Net. What it is, is what it's going to remain. When there were 100
members, and 1000 users, it could have tried to find a path of being a
reasonable system for reasonable people, but the users aren't there any
more. They're not coming back. They left for a reason. Their skins
were too thin, their stomachs too weak, or their taste too refined for
what Grex has become. Many came here because they went through the
same process on M-Net.
I'd like to think Grex could recover some day, but I'd like to think M-
Net could, too. I just don't see it happening.
|
richard
|
|
response 194 of 299:
|
Apr 5 00:13 UTC 2005 |
grex is dying because the conferences are being neglected. suggest taking
care of the conferences, cleaning up some, shutting down others, moderating
others, and you get accused of violating grex's high moral standards. Grex
can't be "holier than thou" and survive. Grex needs to make itself a place
that would be attractive to a wide variety of new users. Right now there are
new users who join party and chat, but they go to the conferences and see a
bunch of crap and say why bother, and then they will only ever chat here and
not conference.
grex isn't working. It is drowning in a sea of crap posts, just like mnet
did. mnet is a shell of its former self now, most of its confs are devoid
of intelligent exchange. mnet seems to exist now solely for the purpose of
a half a dozen or so users to roll in the mud with each other. Grex doesn't
need to let itself go in that direction but it is, because all these purists
come here and say grex can't change without being hypocritical. That Grex
has staked out such a high moral ground that it can't be anything different.
I disagree with that. Grex can change, and that change can't be more filters
and more programs to block user access. The change has to be more directly
taking care of grex's conferences.
either that or shut down the conferences and go to a complete blogosphere
where grex hosts nothing but blogs, where the person whose blog it is woudl
do all the moderating
|
naftee
|
|
response 195 of 299:
|
Apr 5 00:21 UTC 2005 |
re 191
Dude.
So you're saying that GreX currently does NOT have a policy which makes it
equivalent to the New York Times.
This directly contradicts what you insinuate in resp:186.
|
keesan
|
|
response 196 of 299:
|
Apr 5 00:27 UTC 2005 |
I am no longer seeing any crap in agora. My twit filter works fine and I have
not even had to add any names to it for a couple of days. .cfonce - feel free
to copy the last paragraph. I do occasionally have to hit the Enter key
(using picospan) to get past items where nobody but a twit posted and it would
be nice to eliminate that but I can live with it.
|
naftee
|
|
response 197 of 299:
|
Apr 5 00:49 UTC 2005 |
where's the last paragraph ?!
|
aruba
|
|
response 198 of 299:
|
Apr 5 14:03 UTC 2005 |
I liked other's post in #140. It *does* sound Orwellian to say that some
limits on free speech are required to preserve free speech, but it also
seems true.
I wonder - if we combined a system twit filter with IP-blocking within
newuser, if that wouldn't make a big difference. There can't be an infinite
number of sites which allow anonymous telnetting. After a few rounds of
accounts being created, put on the twit filter and their IP addresses put in
the newuser filter, wouldn't the twits start to run out of places to create
accounts from? Someone who's worked on the IP blocks in the past can
perhaps enlightn me.
I suggest creation of a position, whose sole job is to maintain the system
twit filter. (Maybe it should be a panel of 3 people, so there are some
checks and balances - but it can't be too many people, because they have to
move fast.) I wouldn't want any one person to hold the job for too long; it
should rotate around.
|
jep
|
|
response 199 of 299:
|
Apr 5 15:27 UTC 2005 |
I don't think it's Orwellian at all to limit behavior to allow freedom
for everyone. All of society does that. It's not "freedom" to allow
cell phones and loud talking in the movie theater. It ruins the
experience for everyone. On Grex, we allow a few twits to run rampant
and ruin the items and conferences for everyone.
I agree with Sindi; twit filters greatly help me to use the
conferences. New users don't know how to use them, though. They're
not going to be impressed by the unfiltered Grex as it is now.
I'm for a more usable, user-friendly Grex, even at the cost of free-
form, lowest common denominator, no rules "freedom". I don't think
it's freedom at all to let garbage overrun all else.
|
tod
|
|
response 200 of 299:
|
Apr 5 15:46 UTC 2005 |
I enjoy the autonomy of the personal twit filter. My only recommendation to
aid new users would be to offer them the names of staff people that currently
use the twit filter and let the new users pick and choose which one they'd
like to copy/edit.
|
slynne
|
|
response 201 of 299:
|
Apr 5 15:54 UTC 2005 |
I very much disagree with the statement in resp:187: "it is hypocritical
to claim to oppose government censorship while supporting private
censorship."
But I suppose that is something best saved for another item. This item
is about what is best for Grex. I am not sure what the answer is. There
is something special about having a forum where all may speak. But, it
turns out that once you have such a place, enough people will abuse it
that it essentially becomes useless.
I have noticed in the blog world, each individual who keeps a blog has
the ability to control the content (including comments) on their blogs
and that has gone a long way to keep twits from trashing things too
much. It still happens but it seems more rare.
Maybe the answer for grex is to get into the whole blog mindset. Twit
filters and ip blocks for bbs and author control (even over another's
responses) in some sort of blog section.
|
tod
|
|
response 202 of 299:
|
Apr 5 17:02 UTC 2005 |
I hate blogs. They are extensions of vanity press. If people start removing
responses from their items that they don't like then we're going to have some
serious issues.
|
slynne
|
|
response 203 of 299:
|
Apr 5 17:08 UTC 2005 |
Really? I suspect that if that sort of policy were in place, people who
dont like the idea of having their posts deleted will refrain from
responding to those items. The important thing is to make sure any blog
section of grex has clear policies. I know that not everyone likes
blogs which is why I wouldnt suggest that grex *only* have blogs
although I dont see a problem with allowing authors to control items.
As for blogs, I like them. One of the main reasons I like mine is that
it gives me control over posts. I can delete posts (which I have done
although very rarely). I can disallow annonymous posts (which i have
never done) or I can turn off the comments altogether (which I have
done recently).
|
keesan
|
|
response 204 of 299:
|
Apr 5 17:20 UTC 2005 |
How is a new user supposed to be able to choose a twit filter? The new users
we sign up prefer not to make choices. Let the filter be on by default. It
is pretty obvious who the major twits are. I could live with a couple of
other annoying posters that are on my filter because they can't spell.
|
tod
|
|
response 205 of 299:
|
Apr 5 17:25 UTC 2005 |
re #203
The serious issues I'm referring to are the entire charter of Cyberspace.
|
naftee
|
|
response 206 of 299:
|
Apr 5 17:33 UTC 2005 |
re 201 I suppose you agree with the fact that the police should not be armed,
but the citizens should be allowed to carry guns ?
|
naftee
|
|
response 207 of 299:
|
Apr 5 17:34 UTC 2005 |
statement, not fact
|
richard
|
|
response 208 of 299:
|
Apr 5 17:38 UTC 2005 |
twit filters only work once you have them set up. The problem that
needs to be considered is new user, who run newuser, get an account and
read confs knowing nothing about twit filters or who the twits are that
need to be filtered. They aren't going to stay around long enough to
learn all of that. They will just leave. Then you end up with a grex
that is not growing or evolving, because only the same users-- the ones
who know how to use twit filters and who the twits are-- stay around as
regulars.
I just don't think filters are any kind of long term answer.
|
blaise
|
|
response 209 of 299:
|
Apr 5 17:45 UTC 2005 |
What about splitting agora? Have two conferences, one that is
unprotected and one that is protected. Default new users to reading the
protected version but being unable to post to it until whatever criteria
are decided on have been met.
|
slynne
|
|
response 210 of 299:
|
Apr 5 17:53 UTC 2005 |
resp:5 The entire character of Cyberspace is changing no matter what.
All we can do is maybe control the direction in which it changes.
|
tod
|
|
response 211 of 299:
|
Apr 5 17:54 UTC 2005 |
Perhaps you need to address the newuser issue rather than the content of
existing users? Recruit some palatable participants if you think it is a
problem. The minute you start talking about a "private system" and picking
and choosing the members then you can just go scrap article 6 of Cyberspace's
incorporation (especially section 5.) I honestly don't see how a blog could
fit into computer "conferencing" if each "blog" has a squelch button held by
each author. That' is not conferencing; that is dictation.
|