You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-20   20-44   45-69   70-94   95-119   120-144   145-168    
 
Author Message
25 new of 168 responses total.
styles
response 20 of 168: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   Oct 31 22:28 UTC 2001

(people are slipping in left and right.)
krj
response 24 of 168: Mark Unseen   Oct 31 22:29 UTC 2001

Mark, thanks, I like your implementation language, it is better 
than mine.
janc
response 25 of 168: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   Nov 1 12:30 UTC 2001

Thanks for the clarification, Meg.  I thought that was what you meant.
krj
response 31 of 168: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   Nov 1 15:07 UTC 2001

This response has been erased.

scott
response 33 of 168: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   Nov 1 15:52 UTC 2001

This response has been erased.

aruba
response 35 of 168: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   Nov 1 17:06 UTC 2001

This response has been erased.

scott
response 37 of 168: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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? ;)
jp2
response 39 of 168: Mark Unseen   Nov 1 17:53 UTC 2001

This response has been erased.

aruba
response 40 of 168: Mark Unseen   Nov 1 17:58 UTC 2001

If it's not vigilante justice you're after (I take your word for it), then
is all the fuss you've been making just about getting attention?  Is there
nothing more to it?
jp2
response 41 of 168: Mark Unseen   Nov 1 18:01 UTC 2001

This response has been erased.

aruba
response 42 of 168: Mark Unseen   Nov 1 18:26 UTC 2001

What's the larger goal?
janc
response 43 of 168: Mark Unseen   Nov 1 21:09 UTC 2001

I think Grex has functioned with it's current policies for over ten years
without doing anyone any substantial harm.  I think the policies could bear
improvement, but if one wishes to build one's reputation as a superhero,
there are other issues on the planet that more urgently need to be addressed.

I think the rule suggested in this motion would be an improvement.
jp2
response 44 of 168: Mark Unseen   Nov 1 21:27 UTC 2001

This response has been erased.

 0-20   20-44   45-69   70-94   95-119   120-144   145-168    
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss