|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 116 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 50 of 116:
| 
Mar 31 17:45 UTC 1996 |
I see nothing wrong with a person entering and freezing an item
immediately - its like an announcement. It is done all the time
i classifieds, where the person wants offers, not discussion! I just
draw the line at one person trying to control the discussion being
carried on by others.
|
brighn
|
|
response 51 of 116:
|
Mar 31 20:40 UTC 1996 |
I started a conference on flirting. Kerouac came in with a serious
item. I moved it. He accused me of censorship.
He started an item on it in coop. Others came in with srious comments.
He froze the item.
If I don't own the conference (and I don't), he doesn't own the item.
My response? If we want to continue the discussion that was started
(and we did... um, he moved it to a new item... there's an intersting
parallel between his behavior and mine, no?), tehn somebody else shoud
just start a new item. *shrug*
|
headdoc
|
|
response 52 of 116:
|
Mar 31 20:42 UTC 1996 |
I would not argue for establishing any more "rules" about freezing items,
but I didn't think Greg was asking for that. He was expressing an opinion
about the behavior or another Grexer and I think that he was correct in his
feelings, or rather, I concur with his feelings. I also agree with Rane in
#50.
|
gregc
|
|
response 53 of 116:
|
Mar 31 22:26 UTC 1996 |
The problem with starting another item to continue an item that has
been frozen, is that this process tends to interupt the flow of the
conversation and can still have the *effect* of squashing the conversation.
I do agree with John, putting more rules in place would be a bad thing.
It's better to just let the capabilities of picospan control what people
can and can't do. However, I see this as an oversight in picospan, or a
misconfiguration. For the most part, everything is set up so noone but
an FW or cfadm can censor something, and we tend to limit that through
social means. Users can remove their own words, that's reasonable, but
the ability of 1 user to squash someone's else conversation is an
inconsistency in the system.
If changing this meant a code change to picospan, then I'd say to forget it.
Marcus has better things to do with his time. But if this is something that
is setable in some master configuration file, then I think the possibility
of changing this setting should be discussed further.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 54 of 116:
|
Apr 1 00:03 UTC 1996 |
I froze the item in agora because there were two items entered
inadvertently called "The Grex Movie Item", leading to confusion. One or
more people entered reviews in my item (#13) not knowing that the
majority of the reviews were in item #16. Since there was no way to
rename my item and the academy awards were over, I just froze it so
people wouldnt get confused.
As for the coop item, I froze #42 for the same reason that I froze #40,
the subject matter had drifted and the item was doing a disservice to the
intended topic. I froze it in the hope that someone would start a new
item that would discuss things more generally. I realized that I had
gotten carried away and didnt feel that the tone of the item could be
changed at this point.
As to whether that is right, I disagree with gregc. As the poster,
my name is at the top of that item. I have identified myself with that
item by originating it. If say, I originated an item about AIDS and it
drifted into serious gay bashing, I would freeze that item because people
will see my name at the top and associate me with what the item
de-generated into. When you post an item under your name, it is like
signing a document with your signature. You should have control over it
because it is a reflection of you first and foremost, and not anyone else.
This is also by the way, why I object to overuse of fw commands. It is
the poster who places the document, in his name, on display and it is the
poster who, unless extreme circumstances exsist, should retain the sole
right to remove or alter it.
|
arthurp
|
|
response 55 of 116:
|
Apr 1 00:12 UTC 1996 |
I have no idea who entered *any* of the itmes in *any* of the conferences I
read. I *do*, however know who's name is attached to responses I like or
dislike. This is because I know that 'they' will take an item to strange and
varied places that the person who started it didn't envision. We call that
'drift' 'round here.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 56 of 116:
|
Apr 1 00:35 UTC 1996 |
I think what you've just done, kerouac, is put everyone on warning
that when they respond in any item you enter you are going to
consider it your item and any discussion will continue only if
you feel it has value.
That will be nice to know. I don't expect to respond much to
any items you enter. I'd hope others would do the same.
It is the most effective way I know of making this a non-issue.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 57 of 116:
|
Apr 1 00:42 UTC 1996 |
Put it another way. If I post a petition on a bulletin board outside
a public building, and invite people to sign it and add their comments, do
I have the right to at some point take it down? I think I do because
I went to the trouble of writing it and putting it up there and signing
my name to it. If someone wants to use my thumbtacks and put up another
petition on the same subject, fine. The poster of an item is like the
sponsor of the discussion. He/She should be able to decide when said
discussion relevant to the original post is finished. As long as it can
be continued in a different form elsewhere, there is no reason the poster
shouldnt have this courtesy.
|
gregc
|
|
response 58 of 116:
|
Apr 1 00:43 UTC 1996 |
For once, I agree whole-heartedly with Mary.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 59 of 116:
|
Apr 1 00:48 UTC 1996 |
#56...mary thats ridiculous. The nature of Grex clearly means that
no discussion can be unilaterally ended. I froze 42...it was re-started
in item 45 and I have no problem with that. I was hoping it would be
re-started. Since ANY item and ANY discusion can be re-started at ANY
time in ANY conference, your response is silly. I didnt freeze the
discussion. I didnt intend to. I froze the item. Big difference there.
|
gregc
|
|
response 60 of 116:
|
Apr 1 01:02 UTC 1996 |
Except that, freezing an item often has the same effect as freezing a
discussion.
|
robh
|
|
response 61 of 116:
|
Apr 1 01:13 UTC 1996 |
To me, freezing an item is an admission by the author that s/he
can't deal with the item's existence any more. Personally, if
other people want to continue in a discussion that I started,
that's their concern, and it would be presumptuous of me to make
them stop just because I wasn't interested any more.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 62 of 116:
|
Apr 1 01:16 UTC 1996 |
re: #60? If freezing the item has the same effect as freezing
the discussion, that is the fault of the users. If a discussion that
has merit ends in one item, any user can pick it up in the next item
and it is not the fault of the poster of the original item if other
users choose not to continue the discussion. There is no great crime
if the poster wants a discussion to continue in a different item. I
would never freeze an item if there were no chance of it being continued
elsewhere.
Item 42 was frozen because I care so much about the topic of conferencing
and its ramifications that I did not want what was essential drowned
out by drifting. So I said there's been too much writing on this page,
lets turn to a clean sheet and start again. Outside of the posts
mentioned, I have never frozen any of the zillions of other items I have
posted. Its not my nature to do that. But that doesnt mean I shouldnt
be able to
|
dang
|
|
response 63 of 116:
|
Apr 1 06:37 UTC 1996 |
How many coop items are going to cover the same topic?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 64 of 116:
|
Apr 1 07:16 UTC 1996 |
With freezers around, it could multiply like icecubes.
|
tsty
|
|
response 65 of 116:
|
Apr 1 07:42 UTC 1996 |
gregc, and others, i was reading forward not knowing that #42 had been
frozen (which I thawed for stated cause)and also, later saw that the
discussion was restarted ... as i postulated in #44 was *always* an option
of *any* user) in an even higher numbered item.
And, certainly I recognized that "academy awards" was merely an example
which, though, as an example, provided an opportunity for considering
the possibility of out-of-conference items.
In reading thorugh #42 it was gratifying to see that three major
drifts were brought back to the itme topic (maybe it was four ...) and
the topic is certainly coop material.
My opinion is that if you start an item it's yours. If it gets *way* out
of hand, or not, you can freeze it. If #42 had been someting NOT directly
related to the daily running of Grex, it would have stayed frozen-by-author ...
and there *still* would have been another discussion of thesame topic
started a litle farther up the numbers ... IFF, another ppl had wanted
to re-start the *topic*, which someone wanted, obviously.
When nephi or I get over to #42+ we certainly will take another look and
see what, if anything, ought to be done now. We do follow up on any action(s)
we take to see what's happenning. More later.
|
tsty
|
|
response 66 of 116:
|
Apr 1 08:23 UTC 1996 |
Got to the other items in question ...and i consider that specific matter
resolved, and rather nicely.
|
brighn
|
|
response 67 of 116:
|
Apr 1 15:40 UTC 1996 |
Richard, you never addressed my point, most likely because you realize
your hypocritical stance and are unwilling to discuss it.
Your name appears at the top of your item.
My name appearance on the login screen of my conference.
(use of possessives her e does not imply actual ownership)
You care about "your" item and wish to have the right to decide when
the conversation is inappropriate to it.
I care about "my" conference and wish to have the right (and, in fact,
*do* have the right, a lot more overtly than you do) to decide when
the conversation is inappropriate to it.
You use a bulletin board (IRL) analogy. You put up a petition on the
company bulletin board to stop the killing of baby seals. Someone comes
along and vandalizes the petition with all sorts of nasty comments about
you. You have the right to take the petition down.
Well, guess what? I'm the guy the company hired to make sure that only
company-relevant information gets posted on that bulletin board, and
as much as I care about baby seals, it just isn't relevant. I'm not
censoring you any more than you're censoring the vandal. (I even did
you the service of moving the petition to the company's "Special
Interests" board, down in that deserted back hallway where the
interns go to smoke pot.)
(No there was never an item on baby seal bashing, for the analogy
impaired...)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 68 of 116:
|
Apr 1 16:32 UTC 1996 |
Grex has never hired anyone to do anything about conference maintenance.
And I would much prefer a conferencing system where there were no
cf-police deciding what is relevant and what is not. The participants
can decide that, *and they do*, and drift gets redirected, without
high-handed action by the cf-police.
|
scott
|
|
response 69 of 116:
|
Apr 1 17:05 UTC 1996 |
Grex has never hired anyone.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 70 of 116:
|
Apr 1 17:30 UTC 1996 |
<unauthenticated, haven't had my shots, and refused the worm-pills - adbarr>
What the sam-hill does a fairwitness do in his/her item? Count ballots? This
does not seem so "grexian" to me. Majority rules in opinion too? Cool. At
least we know where we stand.
|
srw
|
|
response 71 of 116:
|
Apr 1 18:11 UTC 1996 |
People have gotten fed up here and left before, because when they as fw
removed something that they thought was inappropriate, they were attacked
as being "the cf police". I think it is a mistake to come down so hard
on fws. I think that they should be cut some slack to do exactly that.
(I still miss keats and wish he would come back.)
Most fws would take this responsibility very seriously. those who don't will
typically not find their conferences very popular. If we really don't like
rules on Grex, then lets not have rules about what fws cannot do.
(or were we just kidding ourselves?)
It is OK if some cfs are more open than others to this. I don't want
ticky-tacky conferences.
I might be unwilling to be quite so flexible about agora and coop.
|
brighn
|
|
response 72 of 116:
|
Apr 1 19:04 UTC 1996 |
(methinks a *few* people missed the point of my analogy)
I was trying to put the situation into Kerouac's analogy. If I've been
hired as FW, someone should check my address, because I ain't getting
no paychecks. =} Kerouac has, in fact, convinced me that FWs don't,
in fact, own their conferences, and uless an item is *completely* out of
line, they don't have the right to fiddle with items.
Having done this, KErouac then proceeds to claim that he, as an item
poster, owns the items he posts. The relationship between FW and
conference, on the one hand, and poster and item, on the other, is
similar enough that for Kerouac to say that FW's can't censor through
their actions but posters can is for Kerouac to say that he wishes a
big huge piece of birthday cake for his gullet while keeping the cake
itself intact. My point is, either both FWs and posters can ethically
freeze/kill/whatever, or neither can.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 73 of 116:
|
Apr 1 19:47 UTC 1996 |
Brighn, I see your point but I dont view the creating of a conference
as an act of individual initiative. Most conferencing ideas are
joint efforts. Items are individual efforts. Further, a "conference"
by definition means a joint effort. The poster of an item is like the
author of a book. The fair witness is like one of the "collective"
authors of a book that has many writers. The difference being that
one book gets written regardless of who the fair witness is, and the
other only gets written through the inititative of the poster.
I'm not saying that participants in an item dont contribute in much
the same way as participants in a conference, but I view the poster
as the author of the item, whereas I view the fair witness as the janitor
in the room where the conference is taking place. The FW provides the
environment for authors to do their work, but that doesnt mean he
gets credit on the book cover unless he wants to write his own work.
|
brighn
|
|
response 74 of 116:
|
Apr 1 19:56 UTC 1996 |
But yet you refuse to let FWs push the mop around if someone shits in the
hallway... you're not making sound sense, Kerouac.
|
