|
Grex > Coop9 > #27: Motion: To allow anonymous reading via Backtalk | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 624 responses total. |
robh
|
|
response 425 of 624:
| 
Jan 21 16:00 UTC 1997 |
Which would pretty much defeat the purpose of the whole thing.
At that point, a f-w could funtionally turn a registered-users-only
conference into an anonymous-accessible conference by linking all
the items over.
|
richard
|
|
response 426 of 624:
|
Jan 21 17:38 UTC 1997 |
why do things have to be resolved? this proposal is bending way over
backwards to satisfy virtually ALL the demands of those on the minority
side of the argument. There are those who feel just as strongly that all
confs should be open, b ut Valerie doesnt give them as much sonsdieration
because they arent threatening to leave. Since there isa much better
chance that a majority of voters would vote to simplylet all confs be
open, nwhy not let that be voted on as well>?
How does giving one side everything they want constitute a compromise?
|
jenna
|
|
response 427 of 624:
|
Jan 21 17:55 UTC 1997 |
let's see you could handle the problems dealing with
currently linked items by making a decision one way or the other on them
or askin for them to be deleted and restarted. As for future
links... that is a hard one, but you can always start a similiar item
in another conference
|
rcurl
|
|
response 428 of 624:
|
Jan 21 18:41 UTC 1997 |
I agree with remmers (#422) that clause #3 establishes a very bad new policy.
I agree with Jan that the failure of this motion to be adopted does not
create a new policy, and that then we revert to the status quo.
I disagree with Jan that the linking policy is a problem. Its purpose is
to simply remove this right for cfs that are not fully "public access". The
loss of these items to the intro cf is just "too bad". We cannot have
conferences half free and half.....not free. In any case, the inquiries in
cfs, about whether the users have an opinion on unregistered reading,
appears to me to favor unregistered reading. But then, I don't read the other
cfs - what's the count between the two choices?
|
richard
|
|
response 429 of 624:
|
Jan 21 23:11 UTC 1997 |
but rcurl, this policy would not remove the right of linking, but put all
fw's on an honor systemn, which is vague and which new fw's could end
up being ingorant of. Grex doesnt need lots of "hidden"rules that fw's have
to
abide by in order to be fw's.
Andalsorcurl,you have providedno reasoning why the fw should be logically the
one to make the decision. Is ityour opinion hat the fw owns the conf ahd
shoudl therefore hav more say than anyone else there?
|
richard
|
|
response 430 of 624:
|
Jan 22 02:58 UTC 1997 |
And most conferences have more than one FW...what if one fair witness wants
the conf
open and the other wants it closed? What if two want it closed and
one wants it open.
This proposal opens the way for a LOT of bickerering in a lot of confs...
I wouldnt want approval/opposition to thisproposal to suddenly be the
litmus test for fw'ship in any conf. And I wouldnt want this issue to be
looming over th e head of anyone who wants to be an fw. Such pressures will
diminish the numbers of people who even want to FW.
It is just impractical to have the fw or fw's making this decision.
|
ladymoon
|
|
response 431 of 624:
|
Jan 22 05:49 UTC 1997 |
This proposal does nothing for opening up bickering compared to your clueless
remarks, Richard/Kerouac.
Let me first of all say how full of shit you are when you state that I would
like the ability to kick people out of Sexuality II. Fuck you! Don't you know
that wanting to kick your inane and useless ass off the face of this planet
is a PERSONAL THING between you and I, or are you so totally braindead as to
think that I treat everyone the way I treat freaks like you?
This compromise is a true compromise- giving the non-backtalkers what we want
in whole would not have Backtalk be allowed on Grex AT ALL. Now, if that is
what the compromise stated, then yes, it wouldn't be a compromise.
It doesn't say that.
Try again Richard. Or, better yet, don't. Just shut the fuck up and unplug
the life-support someone put your brain on years ago.
The preceding was riddled with ad hominems, and was highly incendiary. The
writer of it knows this, and intended it to be that way, so there's no use
in pointing it out to her. Have a nice evening.
|
srw
|
|
response 432 of 624:
|
Jan 22 08:20 UTC 1997 |
I completely agree that clause three is bad policy.
I agree with Jan that there are problems with clause two, but if we never get
any new confs that are closed to unregistered users, then I suspect we will
only ever have just the two, sexuality and poetry. (Did I miss one?)
Robh will have to lay off of linking from those two into intro, and
that is a shame, but I'd rather keep those conferencers than lose them
over refusing to allow them to keep their conferences closed to unregistered.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 433 of 624:
|
Jan 22 08:20 UTC 1997 |
ladymoon slipped in.....
|
rcurl
|
|
response 434 of 624:
|
Jan 22 08:31 UTC 1997 |
srw too.....
I have the impression that most want to chagne clause three, but would support
the rest of the motion. If valerie declines to change clause three, I would
still vote for the motion, but then I would enter a new vote on amending
clause three to state what I originally proposed for it. (This is a way to
handle dealing with three separate clauses without voting on each separately,
though that is also a possibility).
|
remmers
|
|
response 435 of 624:
|
Jan 22 12:34 UTC 1997 |
[For handy reference: The clauses being referred to are listed
in response #419. To view them, type 'only 419' at the respond-
or-pass prompt (or the corresponding thing if you're here via
backtalk).]
If clause 3 is deleted, clause 1 needs to be revised to make it
clear that it applies to existing conferences only.
I tend to agree that clause 2 isn't a big problem if clause 3
goes.
|
valerie
|
|
response 436 of 624:
|
Jan 22 14:33 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 437 of 624:
|
Jan 22 16:53 UTC 1997 |
I think that just because there are only three or four conferences
(sexuality, poetry, gay, synthesis) which have fw's that would object to
unregistered reading doesnt make clause #2 acceptable. FWs of confs do
change over time. Fairwitnesses come and go. And sooner or later,
those confs will change fw's and other confs will, and there will be
bickering because of this clause.
At least say that the decision of the current fw's is to be considered
permanent, that once a conf is openend to unregistered users it stays
open. This will eliminate future bickering in the exsisting confs.
And as for the confs choosing to be exempt, I dont think those confs
should be offered at all as Backtalk accessible. Grex ought to be able
to say that its confs offered through the web page all adhere to
consistent policy. Those confs can just continue to be picospan-only.
|
richard
|
|
response 438 of 624:
|
Jan 22 17:22 UTC 1997 |
I have a question:
If the fate of anonymous users in confs is to be decided by Fair
Witnesses, wouldnt the same logic allow for FW's to be able to decide if
they wish to allow anonymous posting? I think users allowed to post
anonymously are much more likely to become involved then if they could
just read a conf.
As an FW, I would welcome anonymous posting in my confs. And I think it
only fair that if some fw's can "exempt" anonymous users, that others
(like me) be allowed to include them to the fullest extent.
I request that clause #2 be revised to include "reading and posting" and
that fw's be allowed then to decide if they want a "read only", "totally
exempt", or "read and post"
|
mary
|
|
response 439 of 624:
|
Jan 22 18:59 UTC 1997 |
With the change in paragraph #3 I'll be voting yes.
|
mary
|
|
response 440 of 624:
|
Jan 22 19:06 UTC 1997 |
I still think it's a misstep and it will create administrative
problems as well as rewarding users who throw tantrums but
it will stop the problem from extending to new conferences.
Also, for those who are concerned about a control freak FW
running rampant over a conference - remember that all it takes
to start a new conference is a request to have one started.
If you don't like the way Sexuality is being run then request
an Alt-Sexuality conference and ask other dissatisfied
participants to join you there.
|
e4808mc
|
|
response 441 of 624:
|
Jan 22 19:38 UTC 1997 |
Valerie, I like the new wording.
|
dpc
|
|
response 442 of 624:
|
Jan 23 02:26 UTC 1997 |
I preferred the *old* reading of Clause 3 because it allowed
"local option" on unregistered reading. The new Clause 3 establishes
unregistered reading as the "wave of the future" on Grex. I don't
think this is a good idea. The beauty of the original Clause 3
was that it preserved parity and allowed us to change our minds
easily down the road.
|
robh
|
|
response 443 of 624:
|
Jan 23 02:42 UTC 1997 |
What dpc said. (Should I just put "metoo"?)
|
srw
|
|
response 444 of 624:
|
Jan 23 05:19 UTC 1997 |
There appear to be two reasonable choices of action for us to take with a
split like this.
(1) Vote in the rule with clause 3 disallowing future new confs the option,
which is as it is now written, and then if it passes, start a new vote to
reverse the clause so that future new confs might *have* the option.
or
(2) Switch the wording back and vote in the rule with future new confs
having the option, and then if that passes start a new vote to reverse the
clause so that future new confs might be denied the option.
Obviously, those who prefer permitting the option will prefer to do it the
second way. Those who don't the first way. However, either way we get to
decide the question of clause 3 separately from the main question. The
rules in this organization give Valerie, as proposer, the right to determine
the wording of the first vote, as it is her proposal.
Valerie, you asked the current wording (choice 1 above) needed to explicitly
exempt restarts of restricted conferences, so that they would not be
considered new conferences for these purposes. I think it couldn't hurt to
state it explicitly.
Richard, I think denying backtalk access to restricted conferences
accomplishes no useful purpose. I am dead-set against such a thing.
Also please note that there is no technical way to permit unregistered
posting using either picospan or backtalk, so please stop suggesting it.
|
jenna
|
|
response 445 of 624:
|
Jan 23 05:45 UTC 1997 |
I don't like the new wording of claause 3. If I could vote I'd
vote it right down the drain. I think you're all silly. You can't decide
what the wave of the future is going to be. it has to just happen.
if it really si what's bound to happen then future fw's won't WANT
their cf's conly on grex. if it's not you're rather presumptious,
and I'm sick of mary insulting everyone to get her way. It's not
better than tempertantrumming.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 446 of 624:
|
Jan 23 08:31 UTC 1997 |
From what point of departure does it "just happen"? A lot of decisions have
been made to get us to this point of departure, and after the vote there
will be another point of departure. Why is one better than the other?
|
mary
|
|
response 447 of 624:
|
Jan 23 14:36 UTC 1997 |
Jenna, jenna, jenna... I'm not insulting "everyone". In fact,
if no names comes to mind when thinking about tantrums and this
issue then I've not insulted anyone.
Grex is a powerful teacher and often the best lessons are not
directly relalated to the issues being discussed.
|
richard
|
|
response 448 of 624:
|
Jan 23 17:54 UTC 1997 |
the usefulness of denying backtalk access to closed confs is that it
encourages them to be open. Sooner orlater, users in those confs will want
web access more than they want to remain closed. NOthing wrong with it IMO.
|
void
|
|
response 449 of 624:
|
Jan 23 22:04 UTC 1997 |
were i a voting member, i'd vote for valerie's proposal as it's written.
re #437: *this* fw of gay has no problem with unregistered reading of
conferences. i imagine my co-fw and i will be having some discussions about
it.
until now i've said nothing in this item, mostly because anything i wanted
to say had already been said and i saw no need for redundancy.
|