response 51 of 127:

Feb 10 04:10 UTC 1995

   sidhe, have you explained why you want to be able to do this?  I
don't think I saw it above.  Apologies if I've missed it (but I'm still
feeling fairly mentally foggy).

response 53 of 127:

Feb 10 15:42 UTC 1995

        I realy don't think you understand. 

        The *ability* to censor is all I'm asking for, in *one* cf, that
would not even be linked to the rest of grex's system. I would be loathe
to ever use it, BUT, if I had to use it, to keep sympathy a place where
people could count on not being attacked while their emotional defenses
were down, then I would need it, and PicoSpan does not allow this. Only if
such truly vicious/vile attacks were made would I use it. I can't imagine
any other kind of cf where this ability is appropriate, so I understand
why you all have your reservations. I'm a bit reluctant, to be quite
honest, to put an entire SYSTEM in place, because I don't believe there's
another cf that should have this feature. ITEM-Killing is enough for most
cf's. But the items on Sympathy are going to be personal "sympathy boxes"
that the entrant will create, voicing whatever has them down, and this
entrant can come back to their box later, to look for kindly advice, or
emotional support. Unlike the items elsewhere, to which there is rarely
emotional attachmen,t, can you imagine feeling blue, going to look into
your sympathy box, and finding that some idiot has put some really nasty
stuff in there. Imagine, too, that, in order for you to get rid of the
attack, you had to ask the FW to kill the entire box, destroying all your
supportive and helpful replies.
        Most attacks would be dealt with in a less-drastic measure, but,
given the above example, I would be heart-broken to admit that there was
nothing I could do to help the person! Better to Surgically remove the
malignancy, than to let it ruin the entire entity!
        That is my case for the ability to kill responses. I can think of
no other reason that would warrant even serious discussion of the concept.

        Yes, my friends, *I* too, do not believe it is something that
should be allowed, as a standard. I call, merely for an exception, rather
than ask that this be seen as a precedent. I don't think ANYONE could
find a better reason for it, and I agree that any lesser reason is not
good enough. To be fair, perhaps I hadn't stated it clearly enough before,
and maybe that is why suddenly I heard cries of "1984!"  I myself am,
as a whole VERY opposed to censorship of any kind, so I can understand how,
when not stated so clearly, one could rally against what you must have
seen as a dictatorial regime popping up, here. Only one cf. Only one
reason good enough. Never to be used frivilously. THAT, my friends,
is the extent of it. I would rather not put a system on here that other
cf's could be put on, with this capability, as I agree that censoring is
not an appropriate act for cf-ing, as a whole.

response 55 of 127:

Feb 10 17:52 UTC 1995

Here's an attempt to answer based on the above discussion:
 
The primary criticism is this: if staff installs it as a set uid program,
it does set something of a precedent.  Why shouldn't they help other users
install any other set uid programs then?  If there were strong public
support, that would be one reason, but there doesn't seem to be.
 
Secondary criticism seems two-fold: (1) people don't like censorship, and
(2) staff doesn't want to spend time on this.  (Though it wouldn't take much
if sidhe or his volunteers compiled it and such).

response 57 of 127:

Feb 10 20:22 UTC 1995

        I will say furthormore that if you do manage to set up this conf,
I will join and say something "offensive" to force you into the censors
position as a test case.  If you do censor the item I will enter an item
in Agora detailing the new conf and its censoring policies.

response 59 of 127:

Feb 10 20:50 UTC 1995

        You're *evading the mailing list list idea I have set forth in
*plain terms*, why?

response 61 of 127:

Feb 10 21:22 UTC 1995

        I would say furthur that if someone wants to edit their item they
can cut and paste it into a word processor on their home machine.  Most
terminal emulators offer this sort of cut and paste capacity.  I would
say leave the burden of "editing" to people reading the items on their
home machines.  Why should the FW be given dangerous power if they are
*not needed*?

response 63 of 127:

Feb 11 06:19 UTC 1995

STeve, did you intend to say Grex has dealt with most problems by
censorship (your second paragraph, resp. 62, next to last sentence
in the paragraph)?  I don't think you did, but you might want to
clarify...

response 65 of 127:

Feb 11 08:21 UTC 1995

        I still say he doesn't need a private conf.  What he claims he wants
to do can be done as easily by the creator of an item of a conf on an
easy to use text editor like Pico.  Why can't he just set up an ordinary
conf and put instructions about how to copy and edit an item for those
extra sensative users he's so concerned about?  If they use pico that
would even allow people loggin in on ancient terminals to edit to their
hearts delight.

response 67 of 127:

Feb 11 09:34 UTC 1995

/home is mounted nosuid.  That doesn't stop you from making SUID
programs; it's just that the SUID bit isn't respected upon execution.
Permission 4700, however, is a relatively nonsensical permission
setting, it says only the person who owns the program, can run the
program and "become" the person, since that's already true, it wouldn't
be possible to tell if the SUID bit were being honored or not.  The
reason this was done had nothing to do with sidhe; it had to do with
putting another obstacle in the way of would-be crackers trying to gain
root on grex, or play various other obnoxious tricks on people.

I think another factor Sidhe is missing is: censoring a remark doesn't
really buy much.  Conferencing is inherently an interactive dynamic
medium; other people see what you've said shortly afterwards, which
sparks response by them, & so on & so forth.  People almost never see
the item as a complete static "finished" object, rather they see a
different "slice" of it each day, and change it by adding new responses.
Unless the conference organizer is very dedicated to his task, he will
not see the response first, but only after other people have seen it,
and possibly responded to it.  That means, in essence, the damage is
already done, removing the remark at that point cannot possible achieve
Sidhe's primary objective.  That's even more the case if Sidhe intends
to pursue those other techniques first, and use censor only as a last
resort.  But there is another, far more potent weapon, that the
organizer has at his disposal, and that's one that works *with* the
medium, instead of *against*.  And that his, he can enter his own remark
in turn.  The remark he leaves can be almost any sort, and whatever sort
of remark he enters will almost always set the tone for subsequent
remarks therafter.

I said "almost any sort"; because there are lots of different techniques
the organizer could use to steer discussion, some subtle, some overt,
and many can be quite successful.  For instance, in this response, if I
had wanted to point things in a more technical direction, I could have
entered just the first paragraph.  If I wanted to start a flame war, I
could have called John a stupid "know nothing" m-nutter.  If I want to
stir things completely away from technical details, I could either have
omitted paragraph 1, or by supplying it, then moving on to other
distracting topics, I may have derailed that particular thread.

These options are available not just to the organizer, but to every
participant.  In this regard, the organizer enjoys no special advantage
at all.  But in practical terms, by being an active participant, the
organizer can usually enjoy a practical advantage especially if the
organizer is conscious of the kind of tone he wants to set in the
conference, and sets out to exemplify that kind of tone.  Indeed, the
successful organizer can generally create a self-perpetuating positive
atsmophere, if the organizer is only conscious of, and respectful of,
the different perspectives & interests of the participants.  Since
that's something the successful organizer has to do anyways, this is not
really asking anything additional of the organizer.

This is the last paragraph of this response, and last paragraphs are
very special.

response 69 of 127:

Feb 11 10:16 UTC 1995

Hey, now there's a wonderful suggestion that would probably allow
Sidhe to do exactly what he wanted to do.  I wonder why no one thought
of it sooner.

response 71 of 127:

Feb 11 10:47 UTC 1995

Out of sight out of mind.

I'd imagine a global use of the twit filter might allow the FW to
limit the outright attacks of a twit on all the members of a conference.
Individuals who wanted to see the attacks could override a twit
filter, I believe, if I remember correctly.

response 73 of 127:

Feb 11 19:57 UTC 1995

        I would have no objection to individuals reading a conf setting up
        thier
own individual twit filters, I would have a problem giving the FW *global*
(to the conf) twit filtering powers.  It's still censorhip by one over the
many, no matter what technical means are used to acomplish the censorship.