|
Grex > Coop7 > #106: Retiring the ID of someone who has died | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 326 responses total. |
kerouac
|
|
response 25 of 326:
| 
Oct 2 18:26 UTC 1995 |
Well since I actually DO use a dead person's name as a login, I will reserve
comment for the
moment. Not that Jack Kerouac would have objected that is...
|
katie
|
|
response 26 of 326:
|
Oct 2 19:32 UTC 1995 |
I can't see the sense in retiring a login that is someone's actual first
name. Then no one else with that name ca use it? That is ridiculous.
(How can so many people 'love' someone they've never met and knew on a
computer BBs for a few months?)
|
robh
|
|
response 27 of 326:
|
Oct 2 23:42 UTC 1995 |
<robh runs like h*ll away from the oncoming flames>
|
kerouac
|
|
response 28 of 326:
|
Oct 3 00:00 UTC 1995 |
In most of our cases, not all but most, there are people out there
in the world (even if only one or two or ten) who have the same first,
middle and last names. There are millions of Ed Browns and John Greens.
Just because we knew Edward Joseph Brown, and miss him, does not mean
that nobody else in the world can ever name their kid that name.
I remember and miss the original mlady too but Grex as a computer
system has as its "prime directive" the words "free and open access"
In my opinion the only way to be true to those words is to avoid any
censorship at all where possible. It is not the place of the Grex
board or staff or anyone else to tell users they cannot be this handle
or that handle, beyond the necessary rules against duplicate logins.
Doing so would be in and of itself a form of censorship.
But situations where a dead person's login comes back into use can be
uncomfortable, and if I were the new mlady, I'd seriously consider getting
a new login. But it has to be her choice.
So my suggestion is this. Have admin email "mlady" and tell her that
out of respect for a deceased user's memory, Grex would like to trade her a
new login with a month's free membership in exchange for her current login.
This gives Debra incentive to change logins and at the same time shows her
that staff is serious about wanting to keep the mlady login out of use for
sentimental reasons.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 29 of 326:
|
Oct 3 00:06 UTC 1995 |
Oh yeah, and the other reason behind trading a free membership for
her login, would be to show debra that it is the login we want to
be inactive not her. This shows her that she is welcomed to be part of
the community. A month's membership is no great sacrifice to solve
this dilemna.
Of course this situation could repeat itself when mlady gets reaped
again, but as part of the agreement, we simply get debra to agree to
not use the login but keep it under her name in the files so that it
remains active.
|
ajax
|
|
response 30 of 326:
|
Oct 3 00:15 UTC 1995 |
Hm...after #28, I think I'm leaning away from retired ids now.
It's one more (minor) administrative hassle, an exception to the
existing loginid policy, more baggage for Grex. If someone wants
mlady inactive, they should suggest it to the new mlady. People
who care can create and maintain a loginid they don't want other
people using, kind of as a vigil.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 31 of 326:
|
Oct 3 00:43 UTC 1995 |
And one more thing. I was not a personal friend of mlady, but if I
was, and felt as strongly about it as some of her friends obviously do,
I'd take up a collection and email her and say, "listen if admin is
willing to offer you a month, we'll pony up six or twelve bucks
and match that plus....because its that important, because she was that
important and we'd like her memory preserved"
Its the american way...if you really want somebody to do something, you open
up the wallet and pay the piper. Its the prerogative of living in a free
country that we can demand just returns.
|
robh
|
|
response 32 of 326:
|
Oct 3 01:15 UTC 1995 |
So Grex should bribe users who select the wrong login id?
(Or those who select the *right* login id, depending on your
point of view.) I don't like it, no sir, I don't.
If individual users would like to buy mlady a membership
attached to another account, that's another matter entirely.
I think by now mlady has figured out what the situation is,
as far as I'm concerned the ball is in her court, and I'll
support whatever decision she makes. (Or doesn't make,
if she never logs on again because of this nonsense.)
Oh, and re #whichever it was - I honestly don't care if
I die and someone else wants the login "robh". If they
understand what they're getting into, that's their concern,
and I'll be too dead to worry about it. >8)
|
kerouac
|
|
response 33 of 326:
|
Oct 3 01:19 UTC 1995 |
She didnt select the "wrong" login id, she selected a login that
was her right to select and is her property. I am saying that if we
are asking her to give up her property, it cant be for nothing because
she has done nothing wrong and owes us no favors. Compensation is
the only fair solution aside from if she just decides to be gracious
about it. It is NOT, repeat NOT bribery to offer someone compensation
for something they own, even a login id, its just free enterprise.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 34 of 326:
|
Oct 3 01:27 UTC 1995 |
And I'm not saying this should be policy. Not enough grexers die
on a regular basis to warrant any kind of official policy. This is
something to be considered on a case by case basis. Something
staff can consider if the user ID in question belonged to someone who
enough people knew well enough to warrant trying to keep the login out of
use.
And I'll reiterate that part of the agreement would be to keep the ID
active under Debra's name (she can just allow staff to change the pw), so
it can be kept inactive without staff having to enact any official policy.
|
davel
|
|
response 35 of 326:
|
Oct 3 01:36 UTC 1995 |
I can see good reasons for retiring for a period (say, a couple of months)
*any* used username - whether the person was removed for inactivity or
died or for *any* reason. It would be really appropriate to try to reduce
the chance of a new person getting mail intended for the old person. But
beyond considerations like that it strikes me as bizarre to try to reserve
usernames for sentimental reasons. Why not pass a law to prevent people
from naming their kids the same name as people who have (recently?) died?
I don't think Grex should be in the business of dictating usernames on that
kind of basis.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 36 of 326:
|
Oct 3 01:53 UTC 1995 |
And I seriously doubt that the next time a beloved grexer dies, someone
is going to mark down the day of death, and wait for exactly three months
for the login to be reaped so they can claim it and get a lousy six dollar
membership. Its not like staff would be offering this person some huge
fortune or anything for her login, and I dont think its going to set any
bad precedents because none of us are planning on dying anytime soon and
if we do it will probably only be common knowledge to those who already
HAVE logins and read the right confs.
This would be just a token act to show that Grex staff and users want to
preserve an olf friend's memory.
|
steve
|
|
response 37 of 326:
|
Oct 3 03:12 UTC 1995 |
That was a great response Selena. I don't agree with all of it,
but I liked it anyway (is that weird?).
I'm pretty much leaning towards the reserving of ID's if the
friends of the person want, and if it doesn't violate the wishes
of the deceased (Robh's preferences noted).
I'm not entirely convinced that this is the best thing to do
in the long run, but if this turns out to be a problem in the
future, we can always change that, can't we.
By reserving the login mlady (if it ever does turn up again)
we'll help the feelings of those who miss her. For those who
think this whole concept is silly, you haven't 'lost' anything--
you can just snort and go on. But those who want this will be
helped by it.
Technically we can accomodate this easily. There is a file
that holds alises for mailinmg purposes, and if we make a section
there for "IDs reserved in memoriam" we can add the (hopefully
short) list there and not have to worry about it in the future.
|
scg
|
|
response 38 of 326:
|
Oct 3 03:25 UTC 1995 |
I'm beginning to think that maybe there would be a benifit of retiring certain
logins, not because it's disrespectful to a person who is no longer here to
have their login reused, but because it seems like a pretty awful situation
to put the new holder of the login in.
|
janc
|
|
response 39 of 326:
|
Oct 3 04:03 UTC 1995 |
Now that is a good point.
|
selena
|
|
response 40 of 326:
|
Oct 3 05:12 UTC 1995 |
Exactly.. The good of all really has to be considered. What's taking
one possible ID out of circulation? Now, I'm not speaking of the
new mlady- she got a hold of that login before anyone thought of
this problem, really. I'm talking in the future.
Thanks, steve. And you too, scg. What dismayed me more than
anything was kaite's response which seemed to out-of-hand try
and nullify my last will and testament regarding "selena".
|
rcurl
|
|
response 41 of 326:
|
Oct 3 08:06 UTC 1995 |
I don't think that anyone is put into a "pretty awful situation", no
matter what login they choose. It's their login, and no one should bother
them about it. If there is any problem, it is entirely that of some people
that got themselves attached to an *icon*.
Lets call this "loginism" - a new religion. Loginists worship every login,
which becomes sacred, and must not be taken in vain. Each login, being
created by divine ordinance, when the corporeal body passes, must be
preserved forever in a file called "purgatory" , which it can wander
aimlessly (and be forgotten) for all time. However some logins are more
sacred than others, and must be taken in less vain, while others are
non-sacred. The rules for this are very obscure, and the process arcane.
Therefore, loginists need to hold s synod, where they can formulate the
sacred tenets of loginism, and formulate proper punishment for
transgressors.
|
scg
|
|
response 42 of 326:
|
Oct 3 08:32 UTC 1995 |
Rane, I agree with you that nobody should bother anybody about their login,
but if you look at this case it *did* happen, and we're subjecting somebody
to that not because they chose to take the login of somebody who had died,
but because they picked a login they liked, and the previous person with that
login had also picked it because they liked it. In a perfect world, we would
all just be able to ignore the history, but apparrently some people can't.
Idealism is nice, but I'm afraid reality may be somewhat of a different
situation. :(
|
popcorn
|
|
response 43 of 326:
|
Oct 3 13:47 UTC 1995 |
(Hey, I said the same thing as in #38 about 20 or 30 responses earlier).
|
katie
|
|
response 44 of 326:
|
Oct 3 16:00 UTC 1995 |
My comment was not directed at your testament, selena, although I
don't think it has any more validity than mlady's loginid situation.
My comment was referring to the sentiments (some of which seem quite
improbable and/or insincere, to me) toward the late mlady.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 45 of 326:
|
Oct 3 16:07 UTC 1995 |
Steve, I am glad that you understand my point. I had thought you didn't. I
think it is worthwhile striving to make this a more perfect world, despite
the obstacles. I realize that some people cannot realize that history *is*
history, and should inform but not burden the present. However that is
their problem, and should not be Grex's.
Informing, but not burdening: that was the essence of my suggestion to put
no artificial obstacles to the use of any login not in use, but if there
is a history to that login, to bring it out appropriately, as history. The
new user of that login would in the beginning be totally unaware of the
history, but could come to enjoy the association - or ignore it, at their
preference. The new user of that login need not "live up to" whatever
others think of history, and of course, in time, will themselves no longer
use it. If people want to make threads of such uses, that would be an
interesting continuation of history.
I don't think that "retiring", and *then forgetting about*, a used login,
accomoplishes anything, keeping a memory of someone least of all.
|
mlady
|
|
response 46 of 326:
|
Oct 3 17:16 UTC 1995 |
Rane- Buddy, if you had had to deal with the crap I have from
selecting the WRONG god damned login, you'd be insane to say what
you just said.
Smae to katie, adbarr, iggy, davel and let's NOT forget ajax,
who was too worried about staff's hassle than that of the new
poeple who get these damn logins! Do you know I haven't had a chance to really
get to enjoy this place yet, thanks to the fact that, around every turn,
there's someone who remebers the first "mlady", and is horrified??
I've gotten people writing me out of the blue about it!!
If my hassle is less impotant than what popcorn up there says is an
"easy" thing to do, then where the hell do you get off saying you
give a damn about people?
Kerouac- I'd love to get rid of it, but I've got mail coming
in from a number of people to me already, at this login. Trust me,
you can damn well KEEP your login! I don't WANT it!!
People are worried about what'll happen in years, when more people die.
HELLO.. In just a few years, it won't be just a type-it-in thing.. you'll
have visual, too, and then maybe a login won't matter so much. but right
now, you guys DO have a problem here, and you HAVE to do something
about it!
Oh, davel- I forgot something- THIS LOGIN'S BEEN INACTIVE SINCE
JANUARY! I'm having loads of problems, so how would letting it come
back after a waiting period do a damn thing?
Anyway, if you don't like the rule, like steve said, you can change
it later, but I really wish you damn well had it BEFORE I got here!
Alright, enough anger.
I'd like to thank popcorn, lilmo, selena, steve, and scg for being
cool about the idea. I think selena hit it right on the head, with her
comparing it to a body, and it was kind of what popcorn was saying, too..
Until you get visual through here, you're going to need to keep logins
seperate. Yeah, so there's more than one srw, but there's only one
srw@grex.cyberspace.org
It's an important difference.
Oh, sorry, one last thing-
Katie- trust me love, REAL love is possible here. I've seen it happen
with my own two eyes in weirder circumstances. I mean, hate is possible,
right? Why not love? Don't be shortsighted.
|
katie
|
|
response 47 of 326:
|
Oct 3 18:52 UTC 1995 |
I'm confused. I thought you wanted logins not to be reserved/retired.
Am I wrong? If not, I'm on your side, hon. My previous response
referred only to the late mlady, not the current one.
I am not shortsighted. I simply don't understand the concept of
"loving" a person that you see in party a several times over a few
weeks or months. I mean, come on.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 48 of 326:
|
Oct 3 19:14 UTC 1995 |
Yes, Debra - make a choice: would you have preferred to have just been
able to login as mlady with noone making any comments on it, or would you
have preferred that it was not available when you logged in because it had
been "reserved" in purgatory? If you would have preferred the former, we
are on the same side. If you would have preferred the latter, then.....
sigh..... 8^/.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 49 of 326:
|
Oct 3 20:53 UTC 1995 |
Ahah! As I thought. Any rational being wants to be their own
entity, and not have to live up or down to someone else's persona. I think
Debra here may very well regret having gotten the login she has.
As for "burial of the dead"- can't we all have a fresh shot when
starting out here, and not the baggage from getting someone esle's handle?
I'm _very_ grateful that no one had been here prior to me as
"sidhe" and had passed on. What if sidhe was a woman? What if sidhe was <gasp>
A REPUBLICAN? I would rather not have that to contend with, thank you.
|