|
Grex > Coop7 > #106: Retiring the ID of someone who has died | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 326 responses total. |
kerouac
|
|
response 225 of 326:
| 
Oct 24 23:36 UTC 1995 |
There are tricky issues here though, because there are people
who are related, and if a user dies who is somebody's relative, I
could see it being traumatic for that person to see the login again.
For instance, if steve died, his son might use grex one day and
see a "steve" login, and being young, this might be traumatic for him.
I dont know exactly how many people have family members using grex
as well as themselves, but I can think of a few of the top of my head,
so its worth considering if the request to set aside should be done at
the specific request of a family member.
|
robh
|
|
response 226 of 326:
|
Oct 25 02:30 UTC 1995 |
If STeve Andre dies, and his son Damon joins Grex and has a traumatic
shock every time he sees the name "steve", the poor kid's gonna
be in Ypsi State within a month. >8)
Seriously, kerouac, do you really think close family members
identify their loved ones as login ids? My mother, father,
and sister mean a great deal to me, and they certainly mean
more to me than the letter sequences "janh", "rhenders",
and "natbaird". I admit I'd be surprised if one of them
died and someone else took their login id, but I wouldn't
be scarred for life. And I'll wager that young children
put even less importance on login ids.
|
bruin
|
|
response 227 of 326:
|
Oct 25 12:43 UTC 1995 |
Robh, Damon Andre would have to go to Northville State -- Ypsi State closed
down four years ago.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 228 of 326:
|
Oct 25 17:49 UTC 1995 |
There appears to be a point missed here.
There was a good compromise reached awhile back.. somewhere in the
late 160's.. Has there been any true objection to the implementation of
this procedure?
|
robh
|
|
response 229 of 326:
|
Oct 25 23:26 UTC 1995 |
No objection here.
<robh feels so out of date on the topic of mental health institutions...>
|
scg
|
|
response 230 of 326:
|
Oct 26 05:08 UTC 1995 |
This came up at tonight's board meeting, under new business, but was tabled
after remmers expressed concern about voting on a rather big issue that wasn't
on the agenda, so it will be decided on next month, if anybody still cares
about it then. The compromize position that was offered tonight was that we
would retire ids of dead users, if somebody asks us to, but not otherwise.
Does anybody, other than Rane, ;) have a problem with that?
|
popcorn
|
|
response 231 of 326:
|
Oct 26 14:55 UTC 1995 |
Well, I brought it up at the board meeting saying "Someone in the item asked
for the board to consider this issue, while other people in the item suggested
that the question would be better decided in the co-op conference, where more
people can have input into the final decision. Do people think this is an
appropriate topic to discuss at the board meeting? My feeling is that the
issue should be decided in the item." Somehow from there we slid directly
into discussing the question of retiring login IDs, skipping over any
discussion of whether or not we should be discussing the topic at the board
meeting. The upshot of the discussion was that we shouldn't decide it at the
board meeting, at least not this month.
|
remmers
|
|
response 232 of 326:
|
Oct 26 16:38 UTC 1995 |
(Actually, my concern was not about having the board discuss
this issue in particular so much as some misgivings about how
we handle the "New Business" section of the agenda in general.
But I'll elaborate on that in a more appropriate item than
this one.)
|
kerouac
|
|
response 233 of 326:
|
Oct 26 18:29 UTC 1995 |
Wasnt there any discussion about the compromise adding a warning line
or two to "newuser"? That was the compromise that had more support
than the one mentioned in #0, but I guess that doesnt matter to staff.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 234 of 326:
|
Oct 26 19:16 UTC 1995 |
that was the compromise i referred to, and, assuming robh
was reading my numbers, he had no objections to. Does anyone have serious
objections to this? <Oh, rane, put your hand down- we know your feelings>
|
janc
|
|
response 235 of 326:
|
Oct 26 21:45 UTC 1995 |
There is no compromise mentioned in #0.
The board very briefly discussed a policy in which the staff would reserve
logins of deceased people upon request (from pretty much anyone who cared
to make the request, I guess). This discussion was very quickly cut short
on procedural issues. Since the problem was non-urgent, it was decided to
let it go until next month.
Actually, I don't think anyone on staff cares much one way or another about
reserving logins. There are people on the board who have stronger opinions.
Personally, I don't see any reason to clutter up newuser with messages about
what happens to your login name if you die. In fact, I'm rather opposed to
putting such messages in newuser. Newuser needs to be simplified, not
further elaborated with strange statements about rare circumstances.
|
steve
|
|
response 236 of 326:
|
Oct 26 22:47 UTC 1995 |
Thats right. But if we do add that into newuser, I demand to be
able to put a section in newuser too, describing what do if abducted
by alien spacecraft.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 237 of 326:
|
Oct 26 23:36 UTC 1995 |
Steve, that sarcasm isnt fair. There have been over 200 responses
entered into this, showing true concern over this issue. Amending
newuser is the only compromise offered that avoids making any
official policy. It is reasonable and it does not hurt anyone, whereas
simply accepting requests to set aside logins puts staff in a bad
position because it will have to make judgements. If a user who
has been on two days dies, does staff set aside this login upon
request, even the person requesting is the only person who knows him?
I think this could be tried. If newuser wont take the fixes, that is
one thing, but it is worth the try. The sarcasm shown in #236
in indicative of what I've been talking about, which is that staff
really *really* has to have its arm twisted to do something it does not
want to do. I submit that if a majority want to amend newuser, this
ought to be tried.
|
steve
|
|
response 238 of 326:
|
Oct 27 03:02 UTC 1995 |
I don't think it should be tried, for a very simple reason:
it is so unlikely that the next 8,000 users who use newuser
to make an account will even possibly encounter being in the
position of requesting the login of a dead Grex person that
it boggles my mind.
To date, 33,038 accounts have been created on Grex with two
more newuser's running as I type this. Of those 33K entries
over a four year period there has been one death. So, one
event of 33K entries makes no sense to me at all.
M-Net has been around for 12.3 years now, and I believe that
four people (Kelly Troldahl, Don Koster, Eric ? and login cutter)
have died during it's life. So about one in three years over there.
I've never gathered up data on this, but I will bet its pretty
much the same on other systems, too.
Given how rare it is, how many people think that this is
important to add to newuser?
|
scg
|
|
response 239 of 326:
|
Oct 27 06:09 UTC 1995 |
I think there are far more important uses of our staff time.
|
srw
|
|
response 240 of 326:
|
Oct 27 06:36 UTC 1995 |
I am also very much against the idea of putting anything into newuser
about an extremely unlikely event such as this. Not only is it unlikely,
but it is downright disconcerting to read about in newuser. I think it needs
to be handled much more discreetly.
I proposed that we respond to requests to reserve IDs, because I think
it is practically trivial to do so. I do not see staff condunting any
investigations or verifying any death certificates. I think they should
accept the word of the requester, and reserve the account 3 months after
its last login, at the point in time when it gets reaped (or later,
if the request comes in later).
Kerouac, I agree that there have been many many responses in this item
which are serious. My proposal and my concerns about your suggestions
are quite serious as well. I do not believe that there is any large
support for discussion of contingency in case of death in newuser.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 241 of 326:
|
Oct 27 12:47 UTC 1995 |
I know "metoo" responses aren't good form, but "metoo" to what srw said.
|
steve
|
|
response 242 of 326:
|
Oct 27 17:00 UTC 1995 |
I was thinking about my statement about getting the id of someone
who has died being unlikely, and that got me to thinking about the
general question of how unique id's are on Grex: how many id's have
been used before, reaped and used again by someone else?
The answer shocked me. 72.2% of all the id's on Grex right now
(Friday Oct 27/95 noon) are unique. No one has ever held them
before. It breaks down like this:
Of 33,475 logins created by newuser,
24,189 have been used once (are unique in the history of Grex)
2,986 have been used twice
723 have been used three times
204 have been used four times
50 have been used five times
12 have been used six times
1 has been used seven times.
The logins that have been used six times are
brian, greg, hawk, herschel, k, mac, michael, mike, phantom,
sandman, scott and spam
The most frequent login? "ben".
Given the fact that nearly three fourths of all the id's ever
taken out on Grex are unique, I would say that talking about
id's used by now deceased persons is a complete waste of time.
Thats why I commented on alien abduction a few responses back;
it's just about as common.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 243 of 326:
|
Oct 27 20:29 UTC 1995 |
Okay I see the point and maybe the newuser idea isnt a good one
after all, but that was only a compromise. I've said before that
I dont think there should be any policy at all, and that is still
the best policy.
|
srw
|
|
response 244 of 326:
|
Oct 28 07:00 UTC 1995 |
To me it is clear that by having no policy, we got to the point where
some people became very disturbed and concerned. So I agree with you there.
|
tsty
|
|
response 245 of 326:
|
Oct 30 06:54 UTC 1995 |
i guess i'm not alone in having some strong opinions about logins and
their preservation for cause. first, i consider it mightly high-handed
to suggest (as more than a temporary chuckle) a "fee" for memorializing
a login in anticipation of some tragedy befalling someone around here.
i hope that idea ends up in the garbage pit of history.
then consider the reverse - not preserving ...oh, say remmers or
mdw, or steve ... or tsty (well forget that one) ... scg or srw
or katie or chelsea .... maybe you want to make popcorn available
to the next newuser who thinks it "cool." want misti wide open - even grec,
- - i would feel that Grex had dumped itself into the garbage bin of
history if the login rcurl weren't memorialized in 20-30 years.
However on a system which identifies perns as 3871074 (like a prison
number) the non-memorialization makes more dollars and sense.
When Grex emulates Compu$serve i'll support non-memorialization - but not
a second before, not one second.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 246 of 326:
|
Oct 31 22:02 UTC 1995 |
I'm glad I still have 20-30 years.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 247 of 326:
|
Oct 31 23:58 UTC 1995 |
I suppose there could be a special file created where the .plans
and other info of deceased or former grexers could be stored as
sort of a memorial. Call it the !memorial file, the grex hall of fame.
After all, rcurl may have 20-30 years left but the rest of us might get
hit by a bus tomorrow. Could show that grex wants to remember its past.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 248 of 326:
|
Nov 1 07:55 UTC 1995 |
After further contemplation of #245, I would like to say, I'm
surprised with you, TS. Your "strong opinions" appear to be more
rigid and inflexible than I had ever before thought you were. I
suggest you consider that persons making a donation in the name of
a person they wish to memorialize, is an extremely gracious and
loving act, which helps insure the continuance of the system that
makes the memorial possible. Trying to make something crass of it
demeans the act.
|
tsty
|
|
response 249 of 326:
|
Nov 2 07:50 UTC 1995 |
i have had planted several trees .. after the fact ... not before, and
not witha surcharge either.
|