|
Grex > Coop9 > #27: Motion: To allow anonymous reading via Backtalk | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 624 responses total. |
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.
|
richard
|
|
response 450 of 624:
|
Jan 23 23:15 UTC 1997 |
#449...see this is a good example of the problem...one co-fw of the gayconf
is Void and he wants the conf open. Theother fw of gay is Brighn, who is
adamantly opposed to unregistered reading of anyconf. How is this
resolved? Which fw ges to decide?
The proposalleaves it up to the fw and if if one of the fw's adamantly
stands his/her ground, there is no way to resolve it. The proposal does
not allow for the wishes of the fw to be counter-manded.
Even if the members of the conf are polled, the proposal leaves the
decision entirely up to the fw's and some fw's might feel strongly enough
to maintain his/her position.
|
mary
|
|
response 451 of 624:
|
Jan 23 23:19 UTC 1997 |
Stone them. Stone all of them.
|
srw
|
|
response 452 of 624:
|
Jan 24 01:41 UTC 1997 |
Let King Solomon split their baby down the middle.
|
jenna
|
|
response 453 of 624:
|
Jan 24 03:24 UTC 1997 |
I imagine the void and brighn will come to some sort of functinal concurrance,
as well
as *the aspect richard seems likely to forget* consulting
the conference participants. Richard always forgets that part.
|
void
|
|
response 454 of 624:
|
Jan 24 04:41 UTC 1997 |
and btw, kerouac, i'm a she, not a he. ;)
|
mta
|
|
response 455 of 624:
|
Jan 24 06:32 UTC 1997 |
I'd vote for the new wording, Valerie.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 456 of 624:
|
Jan 24 07:59 UTC 1997 |
Re #450: see? The proposal has entertainment value, too.
|
valerie
|
|
response 457 of 624:
|
Jan 24 15:57 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 458 of 624:
|
Jan 24 17:02 UTC 1997 |
Sounds fine to me.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 459 of 624:
|
Jan 24 17:34 UTC 1997 |
A suggested rewording of the preamble:
Conferences on Grex are readable by anyone that creates an account on Grex
(registered users) and also by others (unregistered users,) including by
means of a web browser, in accord with the following policies:
[This removes the uncertainty of the antecedent to "This", and corrects
the relative pronoun "who" to "that".]
The order 1, 4, 5, 3, 2 might be better, to keep related policies closer
together.
|
remmers
|
|
response 460 of 624:
|
Jan 24 18:04 UTC 1997 |
More suggestions for fine-tuning the language; purely for
clarity, no substantive changes: Distinguish more clearly
between current and new policy, and make clearer when "readable"
is being used in the sense of "read-only". Maybe something like
this for the preamble:
Currently, conferences of Grex are readable by and can be
posted to by anyone who creates an account on Grex (registered
users). It is proposed to extend reading (but not posting)
access to unregistered persons, including via the World Wide
Web, in accord with the following policies:
A clause stating that the Staff conference is exempt is probably
needed too.
|