|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 116 responses total. |
nephi
|
|
response 25 of 116:
| 
Feb 7 19:09 UTC 1996 |
This is the wrong item for this discussion. If you want to talk about this,
why don't you create an item for that purpose. And if you think you can come
up with a better description of this conference for new members, do it -- in
the item you create. Personally, I'd like the best description/prescription
possible to be in the login screen. And yes, I did say login screen. TS and
I talked about this, and unless there is a board action or a membership vote
to say that we can't put what we want in our login screen, there will be an
introductory/reminder piece in the login screen for a very long time. And
if you don't want to look at it that's fine. It takes just as long to scroll
down your screen as the former screen did, and just as long as the Agora login
screen.
To recap, the login screen stays until someone can come up with something
better to put in it's place -- in another item. And no matter what, I'm not
going to change it without TS's blessing, since he was the person who made
the final revisions to the piece and installed it.
Now, this item is to talk about linking. Picospan doesn't work when people
don't keep to the topic of the item they're in -- especially when it's so easy
to just create another item.
Thank you.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 26 of 116:
|
Feb 7 20:05 UTC 1996 |
Oh, my.
|
janc
|
|
response 27 of 116:
|
Feb 7 20:18 UTC 1996 |
I think it belongs in a bulletin.
|
davel
|
|
response 28 of 116:
|
Feb 7 22:14 UTC 1996 |
Um, Mike, the title of this item is "Co-op 8". This has to be about linking?
I have to agree that the place for "description of this conference for new
members" is the bulletin, not the login screen. But I don't think that anyone
proposed forcing you to change it, except by weight of argument and/or
vituperation.
|
danr
|
|
response 29 of 116:
|
Feb 8 00:19 UTC 1996 |
The only problem I have with the login message is that it's a bit wordy.
You could probably get the message across with half the words.
|
scg
|
|
response 30 of 116:
|
Feb 8 02:53 UTC 1996 |
Yeah, it belongs in the bulletin. That way everybody who comes into this
conference would see it, but they wouldn't have to see it every time they come
in. For those who don't know, the bulletin is a file that is shown to each
user every time it changes, or their first time in the conference, but not
at other times.
|
carson
|
|
response 31 of 116:
|
Feb 8 02:54 UTC 1996 |
and a little more coherency. :)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 32 of 116:
|
Feb 8 02:57 UTC 1996 |
An Item called "Co-op 8" seems to me to be the absolutely best place
to discuss anything about the format of Co-op 8. Let's see, it says
decisions are made by a "rough consensus" - not by the fw. So, can we
see if we have a rough consensus? I consense to shorten the login screen
to a title and very brief description.
|
nephi
|
|
response 33 of 116:
|
Feb 8 05:31 UTC 1996 |
You people don't listen! This is what #0 says:
> As some of y'all know, I've asked the Conference Admins to create Coop 8
> because most folks seem to think that this version of Coop has gotten a
> little (well, okay, a lot) bloated.
>
> The new conference will open within a week, and in the mean time, I'd like
> to know which items everyone wants linked over. I'd appreciate it if folks
> would suggest items that they would like to see linked here. I'll watch
> this item and link over the items that folks want linked.
>
> Gee, I hope that made sense . . . 8^)
See? Linking. Now I remember reading that Staff couldn't be opened up
because of all the drift. It seems that drift like this can make
discussion of a topic very difficult. And it seems that most of your
responses in that item agree with that idea. Now, I've been known to drift (a
lot) in my day, and I'm not pointing fingers, but to be able to discuss
important matters about the future of Grex, we need to cut down on some of
the drift. If someone wants to discuss a topic other than the one of the
item they're in, it takes less than a minute to create a new item for
that. In fact, I see that someone's already done that, so I trust that
you will all follow me to that item for the discussion, which I'm sure
will lead to a consensus.
|
janc
|
|
response 34 of 116:
|
Feb 8 06:53 UTC 1996 |
Linking requires very little discussion.
|
remmers
|
|
response 35 of 116:
|
Feb 8 11:52 UTC 1996 |
Nephi, lighten up. Heavy-handed fairwitnessing is a lot more
of a problem than a bit of drift now and then.
|
tsty
|
|
response 36 of 116:
|
Feb 8 17:04 UTC 1996 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 37 of 116:
|
Feb 8 18:48 UTC 1996 |
Yuck.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 38 of 116:
|
Feb 9 00:41 UTC 1996 |
nephi and tsty deserve much more than that, John. Maybe I misunderstood?
|
tsty
|
|
response 39 of 116:
|
Feb 9 00:53 UTC 1996 |
i scribbled #36 since it was in the wrong place - it is int he right
place now; the discussion of the login screen.
if you will, continue with the "links to request," or not.
|
gregc
|
|
response 40 of 116:
|
Mar 31 00:04 UTC 1996 |
This seems the best item to post this in:
Kerouac started item #42, and then a great number of other people joined in.
He then decided that the subject was "no longer worth discussing", had
the last word, and then froze the item.
Regardless of whether he thinks the subject is worth discussing anymore,
there were still others who thought the subject *was* worth discussing.
I think the item should be unfrozen.
And as a larger issue, should the person who creates an item have the power
to arbitrarily cutoff the discussion when it heads in a direction that
he/she doesn't like? Yes, they may have started the discussion, but I
don't see that that gives the right to end it. Ending it is a form of
censorship. I think this goes double in coop.
Kerouac also froze an item in agora about the academy awards because he
decided that the awards were over and we shouldn't be discussing them
anymore. That one bothered me to start with and this one bothers me
more.
|
scott
|
|
response 41 of 116:
|
Mar 31 02:59 UTC 1996 |
I like to think that all users who post here have equal say. Kerouac is
pretty vocal, and I think he tends to drown himself out. I guess I'm having
trouble with his change in attitude; this topic had him arguing for more rules
and more central power, when his usual preference is less rules.
So what to do? I believe that most of our users are basically either OK with
things as they stand, or don't know/don't care. Kerouac tends to argue that
people *are* unhappy, and as a result don't say anything, quitting Grex
instead. Sort of a "silent majority" arguement, one that I don't believe in
personally. Likely we are arguing extremes, when the truth is somewhere in
the middle. We do have somewhere around 95 paid members right now, out of
which maybe 10 actually participate. The rest seem happy to let things lie,
and they often *do* renew their memberships. I'd say the biggest influence
on whether people stick around is how well the hardware runs, not what the
FW policy is.
|
abchan
|
|
response 42 of 116:
|
Mar 31 04:41 UTC 1996 |
You mean most of the people who are members aren't in the conferences?
<abchan thinks that's odd>
|
steve
|
|
response 43 of 116:
|
Mar 31 05:32 UTC 1996 |
Thats a good question, Amy. I think that most do participate in
conferences, but thats my impression.
|
tsty
|
|
response 44 of 116:
|
Mar 31 07:38 UTC 1996 |
Interesting question, gregc, and from my point of view, both personally
and as a fw (and the POVs happen to coincide in this instance), is that
primary "control" of an item is retained by the originator.To me that
would apply to approx 98% of the instances. The remaining 2% is the SWAG
Fudge Factor. And which way that 2% goes is totally circumstantial.
In such an open system as Grex is, (and this *has* happened) if an item
is frozen by the originator while others deem the subject still "worthy"
of more discussion/drift ... one of the "others" starts a new item
with the same or similar subject matter.
Some item originators consider "their" item a rather personal situation.
Fine with me. They can guide it as they wish. That is their option. Other
item originators consider the sitaution differently and simply open
the discussion letting it grow/die as the various respondants should
choose. That is also fine with me.
As far as teh Academy Awards discussion being a discussion of "how Grex
works from day to day," well, it's not really germaine to the general
focus of this conference and also not so far removed as to have been
moved to somewhere else where it *could be seen* as "more appropriate."
Agora has a movie item which to me is a much more "appropriate place"
for such discussion. But nephi and I, as fws, are generally not going
to stomp on stuff 'cause it's in the "wrong" place.
The respondants here in coop can effect that simply by not responding
to an out-of-conference item. And the item dies a natural death in coop
while the same discussion topic can flower and florish in a more natural
setting, such as, for example, Agora's movie item, or an Academy Awards
item in Agora, if there is one.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 45 of 116:
|
Mar 31 08:41 UTC 1996 |
I consider it "highanded" for the originator of an Item to then act as
though they own it, and especially to freeze it. Rules of order specify
that once a *motion* has been seconded, it belongs to the assembly, and
the person that moved it cannot withdraw it, reword it, or "kill" it. I
think of Items here the same way. Once they are launched, they belong to
the "assembly". As has been pointed out, anyone else can just start a new
item continuing the one that was squashed, so there is a recourse against
the egomaniacs among us. It should be used immediately following an Item
being frozen when it is apparent that discussion is active.
|
gregc
|
|
response 46 of 116:
|
Mar 31 09:08 UTC 1996 |
TS, my mention of the academy wards item in agora was merely incidental,
I mentioned it as simply another example of a procedure that bothered me.
My main concern was Kerouac's actions in item #42 of *this* conference,
and the more general question of 1 person's ability to simply squash
an argument when they don't like the direction it is going. However,
you chose to concentrate your reply on the academy ward item. *Forget*
I brought that item up. It's only incidental to the main point and
only serves to distract from it.
I highly disagree about anyone *owning* an item. I'd only go so far to
say that a user owns his own responses and can choose to scribble them
at a later date if he/she realizes they spoke in haste/error or just
simply want to retract their words. However, once a discussion has begun,
it belongs to the group, not the initiator.
I like to compare these conferences to a group of people sitting around
discussing things. Someone may bring up a new topic, it may get discussed
a great deal, maybe the original person who prought it up will see that
he's loosing the argument or doesn't like the way the discussion is going.
At that point he can request a change of subject, or can leave and find
another group of people to talk to, but it would be considered highly
rude(not to mention the fact that he would probably be ignored) if he
were to more or less anounce: "Ok, I've had enough of this conversation.
I'm going to make the final statement on the subject, and then I forbid
anyone else to say anything more about it." Yeah, right. If someone did
that to me I'd likely tell them to go fuck themselves. The above is what
Kerouac effectively did in #42. He used a cheap trick to get the last word.
|
remmers
|
|
response 47 of 116:
|
Mar 31 12:36 UTC 1996 |
Hmm, I think that a user freezing his own item is something of a
non-problem, since somebody who wants to continue the discussion
can simply enter a new item to do so (as Rane did in this
instance).
Unless we either (a) start making a bunch of rules about what
people may or may not do (been there, seen that, no thanks) or
(b) are willing to make changes in the software to prevent them
from doing what we think they shouldn't do, I'd suggest letting
people do what the software lets them do, realizing that any
system can be abused and that if someone abuses it, it reflects
on them and only them, and that there are remedies to such abuse
under the current system anyway.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 48 of 116:
|
Mar 31 12:51 UTC 1996 |
Seems to me that remmers has stated a procedure that maximizes the individual
here.
|
ajax
|
|
response 49 of 116:
|
Mar 31 15:29 UTC 1996 |
Rules not auto-enforced by the software are a hassle, so I'd
favor (b) over (a) of remmers' choices. Picospan defines the
existing rules to a large extent, the current one being "the
person who created an item can freeze it." I don't see changing
the rule as more or less rule-heavy, just different.
I agree with Greg a little bit, in that I find some item freezes
minutely bothersome. But on the whole, I'm pretty split on the
question.
|
