|
Grex > Coop9 > #27: Motion: To allow anonymous reading via Backtalk | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 624 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 400 of 624:
| 
Jan 18 20:31 UTC 1997 |
#398...David, "Grex" is not a club, "Cyberspace Inc." is a club. Grex
is the computer bbs that cyberspace inc. runs. Nobody is saying you
shouldnt have to say what your name is to join Cyberspace Inc. But
"Grex" (the bbs) is by definition "open-access", intended for everyone
and anyone on the internet to use if they so please and *as* they so
please. That was the reason the founders wanted to found Grex in the
first place. So such a place would exsist that wouldnt have rules of
access, that everyone could use. Presumably, the founders felt the
community NEEDS places like this.
I wish there was a way to calculate how many people here are registered
with valid information. I bet 30-40% of all logins are taken out with
bogus names, because many people WANT to be anonymous. Grex allows them
to be anonymous, I always assumed, because the founders recognized some
people are simply more comfortable participating if they are not using
their own name. This policy we are debating enacting is already in
effect! What is the difference between reading as unregistered or
reading as registered with a bogus name?
This idea that allowing unregistered reading would somehow alter Grex is
absurd? If that was the case, it would have been obvious by now since
Grex has always basically allowed anonymous reading *and* posting.
|
robh
|
|
response 401 of 624:
|
Jan 18 22:31 UTC 1997 |
Re 396 - Gods, so much to respond to, and so little time. >8)
Richard, of course I don't want to leave. I spent the better
part of two weeks crying myself to sleep over this. Of course
I care. I care enough to stay here, even though it means
putting up with you, don't I? (I'd like to put a smiley,
but I can't - I know of one staff member who resigned solely
because of your responses here.)
I don't see how I would be "stabbing (people) in the back" if
I left, though. I'm only going to leave if the membership votes
in favor of anonymous conference access, something which I
vehemently oppose. Surely if the members want something that
I can't support, then they don't want me to represent them any
longer? (Mary Remmers has already said as much in an earlier
response.) It's a pity I know you didn't vote for me, though,
I'd love to think that I was stabbing you. >8)
I suppose if I "cared" as much as you do, I could stay here and
spout kilo-keatses of text on why we should turn off anonymous
access, and ignore everyone's responses to me, or go off on
tangents that make no sense. I'd just as soon leave the system
I can no longer support in good conscience. If you want to call
that cowardice, that's fine. I call it "knowing when I'm not
welcome any more". And that's a lesson you could stand to take
a few classes in.
Perhaps the saddest thing about this, IMHO, is the the number of users
who have talked to me in private saying they completely support my
opinions here. When I do everything short of get-down-on-my-knees-
and-beg to convince them to post their responses here, they say,
"Oh goodness no, then people would yell at me! I don't want to get
involved in that item!" So many people are trying to get more
participants in the conferences by letting any Web-surfing idiot
read what we're saying, yet we're already scaring off people who
are ALREADY USING THE SYSTEM. And I feel like I'm contributing to
that. And I don't know how to stop at this point, short of a
lobotomy to convince me that everyone else is right and I'm wrong.
*SIGH*
|
rcurl
|
|
response 402 of 624:
|
Jan 19 06:32 UTC 1997 |
In any democracy it is inevitable that one will "win some" and "lose
some". We thoroughly air the issues, and then make a democratic decision.
The majority rules - but it is equally as essential that there remains a
loyal minority. Also, people don't vote for anyone because they expect
them to forever vote exactly a particular way, but because they support
the person's outlook and intelligence.
Re #398: Grex/CCI is defined by its Articles of Incorporation, and the
bylaws can't change that. The bylaws were written by non-profit corporate
newbies and are full of inconsistencies and awkward or misleading wordings
- just like what happens when a newbie writes scripts. So, Grex/CCI is not
a "club", though some may think of it as one because of aspects of
relations between the participants. What is important is that the members
of CCI/Grex have the power to adopt policies to implement the Articles and
the Bylaws, and that is what is being discussed here. None of the
alternatives in consideration here would be in violation of the Articles
or Bylaws, so no real injury is done to the purposes of Grex by any
decision that is made. The differences lie in the steps members think best
for implementing the steady purposes.
|
ladymoon
|
|
response 403 of 624:
|
Jan 19 06:59 UTC 1997 |
Maybe "club" was referring to the Grexbat? It's kinda club-like, isn't it?
I am very much in favor of no time limits on the compromise Valerie typed up,
and for letting new conferences decide what they want to do.
|
nephi
|
|
response 404 of 624:
|
Jan 19 08:30 UTC 1997 |
(I agree with Rob and others that it would be nicest
if only the Intro conference were a webpage. It
seems a bit less nice if Agora were a webpage, too,
since it's purpose isn't to be an advertisement, but
I can see how others may want it to be, since it is
so much what Grex is. I rather dislike the prospect
of setting up a beaurocracy for deciding which
conferences are webpages and which are restricted to
people who have an understanding about what Grex is.
And I definitely DON'T like the prospect that future
conferences wouldn't be able to decide wether or not
they become webpages. I think that it will stifle
the creation of conferences in the future.)
|
raven
|
|
response 405 of 624:
|
Jan 19 19:43 UTC 1997 |
I agree pretty much with 403-404. I think the compramise is OK if confernces
get to decide in the future if they want unregistered readers. I would
vote for the compramise that only grandfather in current confs but I would
find it *much* les satisfactory and would be disapointed that Grex would
be moving away from demcratic decsion making and towards inflexible rules
that bind an unknown fututure.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 406 of 624:
|
Jan 19 19:59 UTC 1997 |
We don't have "democratic decision making" now about conference access.
Every cf is 100% open to any user that logs in. The proposal is to extend
this practice to unregistered reading - but grandfathering in those cfs
that object, just to avoid the current argument. It is going too far (in
my opinion) to extend this new idea of closing conferences to some
readers, to future new conferences.
|
mary
|
|
response 407 of 624:
|
Jan 19 21:02 UTC 1997 |
Raven, should Grex also allow any conferences that would like to be closed
that option? Or how about only being open to validated users? It would
go like this, conferences would poll their participants and the FW would
get the final say. It would be done in the true spirit of the Democratic
process, each conference deciding who gets in and who doesn't.
|
richard
|
|
response 408 of 624:
|
Jan 19 21:15 UTC 1997 |
#407, thats exactly what I've been saying, that those who support letting
confs decide would also logically support letting confs decide in ANY
case who can access their conf (I *know* Selena would like the ability for
instance to kick people out of Sexuality II) Either Grex is committed to
open conferencing or it is not. Open conferencing means the confs do not
decide in ANY instance, who can or cannot read their confs.
|
richard
|
|
response 409 of 624:
|
Jan 19 21:35 UTC 1997 |
And rob, okay, resign from board and staff it this passes. But your
deleting your login and leaving grex altogether serves no purpose.
If you cared about Grex, you would stay even if the proposal was on the
books, and as a regular user try to make your case again and again. Even
run for the board next time as a one-issue candidate, just to make your
case.
If you just leave, you are saying that you NEVER wanted a grex that was
a product of consensus, you wanted a grex that was only everything YOU
wanted it to be. That is a selfish attitude.
|
scott
|
|
response 410 of 624:
|
Jan 19 21:39 UTC 1997 |
I don't think robh said he would leave Grex completely.
|
robh
|
|
response 411 of 624:
|
Jan 20 00:54 UTC 1997 |
In fact, robh clearly stated in an earlier response that he would
NOT leave Grex completely, and would continue to actively participate
in party and leave his help-flag on.
Richard, not only can't you buy a clue, you can't even redeem the
"One free clue" coupons we're trying to give you.
|
srw
|
|
response 412 of 624:
|
Jan 20 01:32 UTC 1997 |
So, at this point, I think we're waiting to see if Valerie wants us to vote on
the version that permits future confs to deny access to unregistered readers,
or the version that permits future confs that option.
|
richard
|
|
response 413 of 624:
|
Jan 20 01:39 UTC 1997 |
okay sorry rob, all I remembered was an earlier response where I said
you couldnt quit grex cold turkey and your exact words were "try me"
Sounds like an implication of leaving to me.
The wording should be that future confs do no have the option and also
that current confs, when they are re-started or when the original fair
witnesses leave their posts (whichever came first) the confs must at
that point conform to policy and be open. No FW should be empowered to
make a decision that is permanent, when they themselves may not always be in
the conf or as fw. This is a temporary decision. Lets reflect that.
Also set a point in time, two years or five years from enactment or
whatever, when ALL confs will be open (a deadline being a way of setting
a goal)
|
jenna
|
|
response 414 of 624:
|
Jan 20 02:08 UTC 1997 |
I am against not letting new conferences decide BUT i am EVEN
MORE opposed to setting a time at witch all conferences must switch over
I think that's bogus luring buillcrap, thank you kerouac.
|
valerie
|
|
response 415 of 624:
|
Jan 20 05:11 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
raven
|
|
response 416 of 624:
|
Jan 20 05:14 UTC 1997 |
re #407 No I think Grex should remain open access as is stated in the
by-laws. What we are doing in adding access by unregistered users is
adding *another* level of access above and beyond what Grex already has.
Obviously people already feel somewhat uncomfortable about this extra
level of access or these new users would be allowed to post as well as
read. I think it is fair and democratic to let conferences decide if
they are comfortable with unregistered users passing through their
conferences.
The idea that the compramise violates open access is a red herring. If
you have another substantive critique of the compramise I would like to
hear that critique. The only substantive critique of the compramsie I
have heard is that managing links between conferences will be difficult.
That's why I think a vote should be taken, and assuming the compramise
passes we should implement it, to see if linking is actually a problem.
If linking does turn out to be a problem we can always rescind the policy
and vote on a new policy.
|
dpc
|
|
response 417 of 624:
|
Jan 20 16:10 UTC 1997 |
My point in that fragment of Article 8 of the bylaws was that by
using the word "club" Grex has ruled out any argument that "open-
access" *necessarily* means that unregistered people have the right
to wander into the conferences. We can make any policy we want,
and are in the process of doing so.
And no, I am not arguing in favor of rewriting the bylaws.
I kind of enjoy the "newbie" flaor of the title of Article 8 being
"dissolvement" instead of "dissolution." 8-)
|
mary
|
|
response 418 of 624:
|
Jan 20 19:28 UTC 1997 |
Yeah, who wrote those Bylaws anyhow?
|
valerie
|
|
response 419 of 624:
|
Jan 20 22:36 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 420 of 624:
|
Jan 20 22:53 UTC 1997 |
Why not leave #3 up to the cfadmin on a case by case basis (with input
from the fw's) If the cfadmin makes the decision, the fw is off thehook
and cant take any flak. Andnobody could claim the fw owns the conf.
|
janc
|
|
response 421 of 624:
|
Jan 21 03:12 UTC 1997 |
I'd change "this rule is not enforced by the software..." to "Even if this
rule is not enforced by the software, fair witnesses should observe this
rule." All I want is that the rule doesn't seem to suggest that the software
*shouldn't* enforce this rule.
|
remmers
|
|
response 422 of 624:
|
Jan 21 13:09 UTC 1997 |
I've said it before but I'll say it again: Clause 3 of #419
doesn't look like a compromise to me; it looks like a
significant step backward for Grex.
Another issue I've raised but nobody has answered that I can
recall: If the motion as stated in #419 is defeated, where does
that leave things in terms of policy? The motion as stated has
the form "A and B and C". Logically, the negation of "A and B
and C" is "(not A) or (not B) or (not C)". So that would mean
that if the motion is defeated, it would be okay to do one or
two of A, B, C - as long as we don't do all three. In
particular, it would be okay to make all conferences open to
unregistered reading, as long as we don't give any choice in the
matter.
So since defeat of the motion would permit what I really want
anyway, I guess I've got another reason for voting against it.
|
janc
|
|
response 423 of 624:
|
Jan 21 14:46 UTC 1997 |
I would guess this works like when someone tries to pass a law through
congress and fails -- you end up with no new policy, not the negation of
the policy that didn't pass.
The status quo right now is no unregistered reading. Neither I nor any
other staff member is about to change that on our own initiative, so I
think if the new policy fails to pass, then the status quo will continue to
hold. Another resolution can always be introduced, of course.
I think this is a poor policy. Have you all thought of the implications?
- Fairwitnesses have to keep track of which conferences are open to
unregistered readers and which aren't.
- There will be controversies of fairwitnesses who "improperly linked"
items.
- Items that really naturally should be linked between two conferences A
and B suddenly can't be for a random ridiculous reason.
- What if conference A decides to be open and B closed, but they already
have items linked? Do those items have to be killed out of one
conference? Frozen? What?
- This kills the "intro" conference nearly dead. It currently consists of
temporary links to a good sampling of the conferences on Grex. With
this rule, it can only be a intro to half the conferences on Grex.
Will we create an "unreadable to unregistered users intro conference"
to survey the rest?
Putting a no-links rule right down the middle of Grex is awful. I don't like
it one bit.
|
valerie
|
|
response 424 of 624:
|
Jan 21 15:39 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|