|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 50 responses total. |
carson
|
|
response 21 of 50:
| 
Apr 24 07:34 UTC 2001 |
:p
|
gull
|
|
response 22 of 50:
|
Apr 24 12:50 UTC 2001 |
Re #20: Maybe other will enter a motion about it. ;>
|
jp2
|
|
response 23 of 50:
|
Apr 24 14:10 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 24 of 50:
|
Apr 24 15:46 UTC 2001 |
Naw, jp2 ain't worth the extra attention a motion would draw him. Now,
maybe if he changed his login to usgovt, or even usgummint (shades of
tsty?) then maybe. But of course he'd then have to either transfer the
membership or buy a new one...
So, Jamie, any other motions I can propose that'll cause you to put up
money for Grex?
|
pfv
|
|
response 25 of 50:
|
Apr 24 16:01 UTC 2001 |
I shudder at the thought of "motions for money", even more than at
jamie becoming a card-carrying grexie.
(otoh, he might well become the first grexie 'lobbiest')
|
jp2
|
|
response 26 of 50:
|
Apr 25 01:18 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 27 of 50:
|
Apr 25 02:34 UTC 2001 |
Sorry, we don't really issue cards to members. But I'll send you a handbook
if you like.
|
jp2
|
|
response 28 of 50:
|
Apr 25 03:24 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 29 of 50:
|
Apr 25 10:50 UTC 2001 |
Couldn't tell you - I don't know what M-Net sends out. The Grex handbook
was written by Misti and me. It's 32 pages, and describes the basics of
what you can do with Grex.
|
russ
|
|
response 30 of 50:
|
Apr 25 13:17 UTC 2001 |
Of course, the benefits of accepting jp2's bribes have to be balanced
against the costs of the losses from people who drop out in disgust. ;-)
|
slynne
|
|
response 31 of 50:
|
Apr 25 14:39 UTC 2001 |
well, if russ is one of the people who drop out in disgust, it would be
a great benefit to grex for sure!
|
jp2
|
|
response 32 of 50:
|
Apr 25 14:59 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 33 of 50:
|
Apr 25 19:41 UTC 2001 |
Jamie in resp:19 :: one of the problems in phrasing the proposal is
coming up with wording which is meaningful to the large number of
Grex voters who are not well versed in the technical details of
Picospan. I've been thinking of something along the lines of:
"Users shall be able to withdraw their comments in BBS
(discussion forums) from further publication on Grex.
"This will be supported by closing the appropriate system
log files from public view."
Add in the technical command stuff and filenames if you want, but the
proposal needs a non-technical introduction and justification.
|
jp2
|
|
response 34 of 50:
|
Apr 26 02:26 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
mwg
|
|
response 35 of 50:
|
Apr 27 03:44 UTC 2001 |
Sigh. This reminds me of a conversation I had some years back, with
someone on the pro-side of the gambling in Detroit issue. A paraphrase of
what he said would be: "No one has a choice, gambling will happen because
we will not allow an election to happen without the issue on the ballot.
Eventually, people will get sick of it and we'll win. When that much
money is at stake, nothing can stop it." That's just about what happened.
My preference would be for removing apparent deletions entirely, except
for legally-actionable material. Permanent deletions on any other basis
is asking for a whole new can of trouble. Any sufficiently patient
individual can prowl through the records here and find a number of cases
of my getting Athletes' Teeth.
Best solution, think before typing.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 36 of 50:
|
Apr 27 04:07 UTC 2001 |
I think it's a matter of culture. The grex community has grown up without
the ability to permanently remove text. Other conferencing communities
grew up with that ability. The cultural norms that developed reflect the
abilities of the conferencing software, which probably reflected the
philosophies of their authors.
Those who have never experienced a community that could remove its text can't
believe how trouble-free it was. Those who have never experienced a community
that couldn't remove its text can't believe how trouble-free it was.
Grex's current system is based on obscurity: If you don't know that the
censored log exists, you won't go looking for it, and so you will assume
that what you can't see anymore no one else can either. This is fundamentally
flawed.
As I've argued before, I would prefer the log be linked to /dev/null. But
If we have to keep it, rename it to /nev/dull.
|
janc
|
|
response 37 of 50:
|
Apr 27 05:24 UTC 2001 |
If I recall correctly, I was in favor of this proposal last time around. I'm
too tired to think about it right now, but I think I still am. I should go
read my old responses and see if I convince myself of anything.
|
i
|
|
response 38 of 50:
|
Apr 28 01:42 UTC 2001 |
I seem to recall being, at first, somewhat in favor of the closed-censored-
log idea last time. Then the behavior a number of the proponents of the
idea in coop and the somewhat diarrheal nature of the discussions turned me
off on the whole idea.
|
jp2
|
|
response 39 of 50:
|
Apr 28 14:23 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
carson
|
|
response 40 of 50:
|
Apr 29 05:05 UTC 2001 |
(that sort of response will discourage many similar demonstrations, too.) :P
|
tsty
|
|
response 41 of 50:
|
Apr 29 23:16 UTC 2001 |
grexgummint rulz!
#36 of 40: by Joe (gelinas)
<xnip>
Those who have never experienced a community that could remove
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
its text can't believe how trouble-free it was.
^^^^^^^-WHAT?!
<xnip>
ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, i know it's *not* drugs ... is it dementia already?
censored log stays 644 if distilled-wisdom-from-hades'-experience
injects 1 single cubic centimeter of condensate into this torrent.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 42 of 50:
|
Apr 30 03:26 UTC 2001 |
TS, your biases are showing. ;)
Consider the years of USER:Forum, USER:OpenForum, and MEET:Students. Not
to mention all the other CONFERences. And even the one incident you mention
didn't really lose text, did it? (But let's not rehash that, eh?)
|
jp2
|
|
response 43 of 50:
|
Apr 30 03:47 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 44 of 50:
|
Apr 30 04:06 UTC 2001 |
Someone copied some text from a private conference (that the copier
shouldn't have had access to) into a public conference. An organizer of
the public conference (who, coincidentally, was a member of the private
conference) shut down the conference (NOT normal behaviour) and then
removed the text and reported her actions in the public conference that
was used to operate the first public conference. The rest can probably
be found in court records somewhere.
(The material copied, and how it was obtained, was as, if not more,
inflammatory than the removal of the text, which removal was fairly
standard. Had the copier removed the text, there would have been no
controversy at all. Had the organiser not shut down the conference but
instead followed normal procedure for removing text, the controversy would
(probably) have been less.)
|
ashke
|
|
response 45 of 50:
|
Apr 30 09:44 UTC 2001 |
Ok, now the historian in me has to ask if by private conference you mean this
system and some kind of cf's we don't have now, or somewhere else?
|
