|
Grex > Coop9 > #27: Motion: To allow anonymous reading via Backtalk | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 624 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 335 of 624:
| 
Jan 10 07:18 UTC 1997 |
Re #332 re #319 re linking re.... my modified proposal says no exempt cf
items will be linked to other cfs. However than cannot be done
automatically. It could be the policy, but someone is sure to violate it.
Hence, someone would have to kill the link, and only staff can do that. It
should be hardly any work, and also, more staff could be appointed for a
minor chore like that (or it could be the cfadmin's jo). I'm trying to
keep it simple....
|
kerouac
|
|
response 336 of 624:
|
Jan 10 17:01 UTC 1997 |
#334...I dont hate everything...I just think taht if the purpose of anonymous
reading is
to give potential registered users a sampling of what grex is, that it would
hurt grex to have some of the confs available and others not. It would give
a skewed view of grex, and doing that defeats the overrall purpose.
If noone would be satisifed ever to have a situation where only SOME
of the confs were available to registerd users or members or any other
type of user, why is it suddenly okay to discriminate against
unregistered users?
What makes unregistered users lower forms of life than other users?
Either give them access to all of the confs or dont do it at all. I
agree with Janc, the status quo is infinetly better than any compromise that
would only serve to satisfy a dozen or so objecting users.
I tihnk a flat vote should take place to determine if there is a
true desire for a compromise. I think most dont want a compromise.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 337 of 624:
|
Jan 10 17:22 UTC 1997 |
This is a few people on grex saying "let us discriminate against
other users on grex"
"Let us close our confs to other users on grex"
The minute the board says "Yes you may", then Grex is no longer
completely open-access. I cant believe most here wo uld want it to come to
that.
|
valerie
|
|
response 338 of 624:
|
Jan 10 18:41 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 339 of 624:
|
Jan 10 18:41 UTC 1997 |
I don't think it would "hurt grex". We would be providing more open access
- a step in the right direction (IMHO) - while at the same time we would be
dealing with an issue within the current Grex community. We are not beholden
to anyone to provide unlimited open access...we have to deal with the world
as we find it. Besides, no conferences would be closed to anyone - every
conference would be just as open as it is now - or more. (As has been pointed
out repeatedly.)
|
kerouac
|
|
response 340 of 624:
|
Jan 10 21:03 UTC 1997 |
Wouldnt it be prudent to have a vote first on whether to give
unregistered users access and THEN (assuming that is an affirmative
vote), have subsequent votes at a later time to determine compromises
with regard to methods of implementation?
It seems like getting ahead of ourselves to be voting on compromises for
something that itself hasnt been voted on.
(And I dont hate everything Valerie! I like everything mostly. Certain
things, like Grex, I like so much that I dont want to see its integrity
comprised. I dont think its possible to run a board like grex for any
length of time without some users being alienated and leaving. Its
normal. Sooner or later, it becomes apparent that trying to make
everyone happy, makes noone happy. )
|
dpc
|
|
response 341 of 624:
|
Jan 10 21:36 UTC 1997 |
I think this issue is tangled beyond belief. I'll just wait with
Buddha-like patience until we're ready for a member vote (if ever).
|
kerouac
|
|
response 342 of 624:
|
Jan 11 01:15 UTC 1997 |
Here'sadifferent idea. Whynotinstead ofmaking all of the confs
available to unregisteredusers, justhavea
"Conference of the Month"
Where one different conf each month is chosentobe available
on the web for reading andposting by unregistered users. Users are
more likjely tokeep reading if they can post, and since it
wouldbe a different conf eachmonthIdontthinkitwould
be much of aproblem.
This spares all thebureacracy oftryingtomake all or most ofthe
confs available tounregisteredusers atanyonetime.
|
srw
|
|
response 343 of 624:
|
Jan 11 03:57 UTC 1997 |
Woah! I haven't had time to read coop since I went to Virginia to be with my
mom, and I come backto *THIS*! Very impressive, folks.
For the record, I personally believe that unregistered reading is a good
thing. I admire Richard's unswerving defense of it. However, I deplore the
unworkable suggestions. Rotating conferences, including the proposal in the
above response, are not a particularly workable or satisfying solution. No
one has proposed or supported them in any form except Richard. Let's drop that
idea.
While I think that there are important reasons to permit unregistered reading
(already expressed by Rane, Remmers, Mary, scg, and others) I do not think
it is an important enough issue to pay for with the better part of several
of our active conferences. Let's find a compromise that retains all of the
best of Grex (including Selena, Brighn, Jenna, et. al.) and still allows us
not to stagnate, but rather to grow.
I believe that Mike (nephi) is wrong about what will happen if (say) he puts
in a link to the humor item. Anyone who can find Mike's page of links will
indeed be able to follow the link to read the item. However, while his page
will be indexed, the humor itself will not be. I agree with Valerie that this
will work to bring in new conferencers. This will be a good thing -- not just
a drain on our resources.
I support the compromise, optimistically believe that all fws will respect
the restrictions on linking, and believe that it should be worded for a
membership vote as soon as is practical. It is optional (IMO) that it be
written as an experiment or permanent policy. We can always vote again.
|
ladymoon
|
|
response 344 of 624:
|
Jan 11 05:38 UTC 1997 |
I support the compromise, grudgingly, but wholly. Raven, nice work. I do think
that new conferences should be able to decide, though, what they want to do.
Oh, and Richard- you have no linked item in Sexuality II. What were you
referring to?
|
mta
|
|
response 345 of 624:
|
Jan 11 06:34 UTC 1997 |
This community never fails to astound me! A week and a half ago, had you
asked me about the likelyhood of a progressive and comfortable conclusion to
this issue, I'd have had to say I was sadly pessimistic.
But you've done it again! You've talked and talked and brainstormed and
shared your concerns until you've gotten this close to what looks like an
acceptable and reasonably comfortable compromise for almost everyone.
I'm impressed and proud to be one of you. Thank you for this inspiring study
on the best of human nature after a *very* bad week!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 346 of 624:
|
Jan 11 07:51 UTC 1997 |
Thanks Misti but...uh...which compromise are you talking about? ;->
|
mta
|
|
response 347 of 624:
|
Jan 11 08:00 UTC 1997 |
No particular compromise, Rane, just the changed mood of the item that says
a compromise is now within grasp.
|
davel
|
|
response 348 of 624:
|
Jan 11 13:46 UTC 1997 |
What Misti said.
|
jenna
|
|
response 349 of 624:
|
Jan 13 23:02 UTC 1997 |
And we had to argue and scream and yell to do it. it's the way we work.
|
valerie
|
|
response 350 of 624:
|
Jan 14 20:34 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
jenna
|
|
response 351 of 624:
|
Jan 15 04:42 UTC 1997 |
all of us. or many of us anyway. I never personally did any screaming.
just some caps... *grin* ok...
*shakes her head* has anyboy got a final sorta formal compromise proposal type
thing?
|
tsty
|
|
response 352 of 624:
|
Jan 15 18:33 UTC 1997 |
there appears never to have been an objection to a *selection* of
grex conferences being available to unregistered web users (non-grexian).
<thankxx for the language clarification remmers).
there is *substantial* and serious objection to the wholesale,
open-floodgates availabillity, ABSENT a local, grex loginid.
what i see as the primary motivation for unregistered reading (and
posting prohibited) is to create "bait" for the planet to take, become
a grexer, contribute to the conferences, and ....perhaps contribute
in other ways to the system.
if this synthesis and analysis is sufficiently accurate, there might
be -in place already- not only the mechanism (backtalk) but also
previously approved bait (intro.cf).
remember/recognize that bait is not "i don't beliefve i ate the
whole thing," but rather a quality sampling for further (login as newuser)
involvement.
as i understand the function, purpose and intent of the intro.cf, it
is *specifically* intended to be such bait. the other ~92 conferences
are for further involvement (login as newuser to delve deeper) (do we
really have ~92 conferences or did i dream that ##?)
this concept may necessitate a restart of intro.cf, fashioning it for
a more focused but identical function for which it was created.
linking would become less of a problem if there were *prior* approvals
among the various participants and fws.
submitted for conmmet and consideration after having said very little
because i was trying to find the real common ground, system benefit
and respect for teh wide variety of poistions which make grex great.
i also join with mta in #345.
robust discussion among reasonable ppl strengthens the system.
|
srw
|
|
response 353 of 624:
|
Jan 15 20:53 UTC 1997 |
Actually I think that if it were put to a vote, a majority of Grex
members might vote for anonymous access. Yes, there is serious objection
from a minority of users. I am puzzled by these objections, but I don't
consider it to be a good tradeoff to trade these people and their
contributions away for something that is only of minor importance.
It is very important, in my opinion, that anonymous reading be made
available for some conferences. The importance of making it available on
all conferences is only to avoid the kinds of problems we face by trying
to make this compromise work, that is, respecting the issue of linking
between conferences that have different behavior in this respect.
I would hope that most conferences would remain open, and thus we can
easily remember the few which are the exceptions, so that linking does
not risk shooting a hole in this compromise.
|
valerie
|
|
response 354 of 624:
|
Jan 16 01:49 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 355 of 624:
|
Jan 16 01:55 UTC 1997 |
Sounds good to me.
|
raven
|
|
response 356 of 624:
|
Jan 16 03:51 UTC 1997 |
Howabout 1. Conferencers will discuss whether they want their confernces
readable by unregistered users. The final decision for each conference
is made by its fair witness.
Otherwise it sounds great to me. :-)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 357 of 624:
|
Jan 16 08:04 UTC 1997 |
I would suggest an initial declaration such as:
"Conferences will be made readable via the web by unregistered users,
subject to the following exceptions and conditions:"
I prefer to just allow existing cfs to be exempt,because I think the
direction we should aspire to is complete open access. I think this point
could use more discussion.
|
mary
|
|
response 358 of 624:
|
Jan 16 14:43 UTC 1997 |
I totally agree with Rane and go even further saying I feel
this whole "compromise" goes against what we are trying to
do with Grex. This plan is little more than a bridge
to get people out of corners they have painted themselves into.
(Try parsing that sentence before your first cup of coffee!)
Will we still be working with a guest login? Who is going
to moderate all the bickering and power-plays this FW decides
thing is going to allow? What happens the next time a couple
of users announce they are crying all night and will leave
if they don't get their way.
I know this sounds harsh but we don't need mothers here we
need good leadership. Good leadership would look at our
goals and go from there.
|
dang
|
|
response 359 of 624:
|
Jan 16 16:03 UTC 1997 |
Grex does not have a guest login. The login id "guest" is someone't private
account. As far as I know, Grex has never had a gues login id. Sorry, but
there still seems to be some confusion on that score.
|