|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 183 responses total. |
sidhe
|
|
response 75 of 183:
| 
Apr 5 19:50 UTC 1995 |
Hmm.. I wonder if the idea is how we are to deal with the exceptions?
If so, we really aren't answering her yet. Rules are necessary, yes, but
what are we to do with a situation that they cannot cover well. I would
think that a "judgement" clause in these determinations would be highly
beneficial to the entire process. The Constitution, for example, is a
document of HIGHEST law, that leaves plenty of room for judgement. It
works as well, if not better than many other sets of rules out there.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 76 of 183:
|
Apr 5 21:04 UTC 1995 |
There is no room at all for judgement on a large number of the "rules"
in the Constitution. Eligibility rules (age, residency, number, etc)
are the most exactly specified. In fact, since verification is an
eligibility question, the Constitution provides a strong example of
"sticking to the rules".
|
steve
|
|
response 77 of 183:
|
Apr 5 22:53 UTC 1995 |
Christopher, if we build the system right, the list of acceptable
ID will be good enough for 95% of the cases. That remaining 5% will
have to be dealt with, and hopefully, successfully.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 78 of 183:
|
Apr 6 19:49 UTC 1995 |
That is what I'm referring to. What then, shall we do, with the remaining
5%? Will there be room for judgement calls, or not?
|
davel
|
|
response 79 of 183:
|
Apr 7 11:46 UTC 1995 |
I'd hope that there'll be room for judgment calls. However, some of the
discussion seems to be a demand that there be mechanisms for considering
people as verified while allowing them to remain completely anonymous to
those doing the verification. IMO, this isn't a matter of judgment calls.
I'd also expect that a reasonable list should catch more like 99.9% than
95%. If we come up with a list of acceptable ID that 1 of 20 prospective
members *can't* reasonably fulfill, we've done a pretty poor job.
|
steve
|
|
response 80 of 183:
|
Apr 7 13:06 UTC 1995 |
I'm hoping for 99% too.
In the case of the remaining 1% or 5%, I want to see a system where
we will automatically look at that as-yet-unknown form of ID and see if
we can deal with it. If we can, then the board grants a special exception
for that person, and then adds that type of ID to the list such that there
aren't any other special expcetions for that type in the futre.
|
selena
|
|
response 81 of 183:
|
Apr 7 14:45 UTC 1995 |
No exceptions, then. Lovely.
|
steve
|
|
response 82 of 183:
|
Apr 7 16:18 UTC 1995 |
I didn't say that. I said something rather different, Selena.
Please listen to what I am saying.
If a person comes to Grex presenting ID that we currently do not
accept, then what I'm proposing is that the board automatically gets
notification of this, and we see if we can't accept that new, previously
unused here type of ID. The board then in essense makes an exception
for that one person with the new ID, and also puts that new type of
ID in the list of "approved" ID.
The next time (if any) a person comes to us with that ID, we can
automatically accept it--no problems.
How is this a bad system? It is designed to be as flexiable as
possible, yet keep rules in place so that we aren't as likely to
get hoodwinked over some completely bogus ID. Do note that I say not
as likely. There is always the possibility for fraud; we know what.
But we do want to come up with a system that is a fair and flexible
as possible.
Looking at it from another point of view, what are the consequences
of the verifier had autonomy here: they could accept or deny things at
will, and whenever they denied something, there is always the chance
that the person will say that they were denied not because of the
questionable ID, but because of themsevles, somehow. Now, I fully
realize that when we get our first initial denial over the possible
system I'm talking about, there is still the chance that flak will fly.
But, doesn't it make sense to try and make a system that is as consistent
at possible?
|
ajax
|
|
response 83 of 183:
|
Apr 7 16:33 UTC 1995 |
STeve, I think selena may have meant "no exceptions to needing ID,"
not exceptions about the type of ID needed. The system you describe
doesn't indicate any exceptions to needing some form of ID.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 84 of 183:
|
Apr 7 18:30 UTC 1995 |
Hmm.. should there be exceptions to needing ID?
|
steve
|
|
response 85 of 183:
|
Apr 8 01:42 UTC 1995 |
For access to the net? No. Otherwise, how do we avoid what
would be a popularity test? The point of having to do verification
doesn't sit well with me, but since we need to, it really needs to be
as consistent as possible.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 86 of 183:
|
Apr 8 12:17 UTC 1995 |
Selena, since, as you point out, you have telnet access through Metronet,
I don't understand why you need to have it through Grex, too. It feels
to me like you're looking to see if you can push Grex into giving you net
access without sending in ID, just to see if you can do it. I don't
understand why you need a second telnet access site.
<valerie ducks>
|
selena
|
|
response 87 of 183:
|
Apr 10 05:47 UTC 1995 |
Don't duck. I'm really worried that you guys aren't gonna be able
to accommodate special cases, otherwise. I'm not gonna be the last, you
know. Metronet serves me well, and yeah, I use em to ftp and telnet, and I
use nether.net to irc and USENet.. I just wanna se grex be as fair to
everyone, even the outta left-field exceptions, as possible. I know thia
might sound better if I hadn't have had you guys refund my 5-month
donation, but, since I wasn't even a votable member.. I hope you can see
where it hurt.
I know state law keeps you from letting me in to vote.. it hurts,
but I know that isn't just you. So, I enter here for my pet causes, 'cause
it's all I have left.. I can't vote, I can't ntalk, I can't telnet, I
won't be able to USENet from here.. I mean, I *LOVE* grex, and it was so
nice those two days when you DID let me have a full membership, to be able
to fly accross the net, and return *home* to here.. It made me cherish
being here all the more!
But, that's all gone now.. I'll hhave to take solace that I still
can do it at all.. It just makes my home feel so much less inviting..
than it was, for a brief shining moment..
<Selena's gonna stop now, 'cause she's having trouble seeing the screen>
|
rcurl
|
|
response 88 of 183:
|
Apr 10 05:56 UTC 1995 |
Sob. We love you. Send your dues and ID to danr.
|
robh
|
|
response 89 of 183:
|
Apr 10 10:37 UTC 1995 |
selena, I really don't know what the deal is, but I can assure
you that danr is a discrete person and won't go sharing any
deep, dark, terrible secrets from your ID. I honestly, swear
to Athena, do NOT see what the big deal is.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 90 of 183:
|
Apr 11 22:12 UTC 1995 |
I see a sense of betrayal, there.. You didn't have to present ID
for the first bit, so when it was revoked you felt badly. Tell me if I'm
getting this right, before I go on..
|
popcorn
|
|
response 91 of 183:
|
Apr 12 11:51 UTC 1995 |
But, from e-mail exchanges with her, I know that even *before* Selena
sent in her money she knew that she needed to present ID to get
internet access. She didn't send in ID. The 2 days of internet access
was because of a clerical error, and, when it occurred, Selena knew she
was "getting away" with something against the rules.
<sigh> I should just drop this topic.
|
danr
|
|
response 92 of 183:
|
Apr 12 11:51 UTC 1995 |
Here's what happened from my perspective:
1. selena talked to popcorn about becoming a member. somehow she got
the impression that she could do this without sending in id.
2. selena sent in dues in the form of a money order.
3. I added selena to the members, voters, internet, and usenet user
groups. I often receive dues without id. When this happens, I
usually add people immediately and inform them that I need id. In
this case, it took me two days to do this.
4. When I requested selena send in id, she vehemently refused to do
so.
5. I removed her from the members, voters, internet, and usenet user
groups.
6. I refunded the dues to a third party per her request.
|
danr
|
|
response 93 of 183:
|
Apr 12 11:52 UTC 1995 |
#91 slipped in.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 94 of 183:
|
Apr 12 12:08 UTC 1995 |
NO! In #92, #2 happened first. Then #1 happened. I keep getting blamed
for telling something incorrect to Selena, causing her to send in her dues.
No such thing: she sent in membership dues first, *then* talked to me after
the money order was in the mail.
|
danr
|
|
response 95 of 183:
|
Apr 13 00:10 UTC 1995 |
ahhhhh. OK. Sorry about that.
|
tsty
|
|
response 96 of 183:
|
Apr 14 08:32 UTC 1995 |
I support selena and her concept and her access on her terms until
or unless something goes wrong that can be directly traced to her
login id specifically. The default value, imo, ought to be that way.
And it is a partial question of "values" as well as "value."
I like steve's #56 paragraphs 3-9, and 10-11 if possible. selena
could be anywhere from the planet's worst cybercreep to the model
human (although there are some Grexers who can validly contest
for the latter, none for the former ... well, mostly none <g>).
I was raised, as an "American," to presume the latter initially
and react to the former (individually, not enmasse) in a hostile
manner, with extreme prejudice if necessary.
And yes, I have been sorely disappointed on occassion. Let, however,
the occassion present itself before extreme prejudice is necessary.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 97 of 183:
|
Apr 15 07:42 UTC 1995 |
Let's keep in mind that this is a volunteer operation. Letting "anything
goes" until a problem arises, and then deal with it, makes life a lot
more difficult for volunteers. The "default value" can be a real
imposition on others. Some middle ground is needed, which I think this
nominal and minimal ID for very limited things is.
|
selena
|
|
response 98 of 183:
|
Apr 15 07:52 UTC 1995 |
well, thank you, tsty.. I appreciate SOMEONE else thinking I'm not
full of it.
Popcorn- I talked to you because it was only after I sent it in,
did I realize there was the verification requirement. So,I talked to
you, to see if there was room for exceptions. You said you didn't know,
at the time, and to wait and see what happened.
|
tsty
|
|
response 99 of 183:
|
Apr 20 19:40 UTC 1995 |
In a 7-2 decision, handed down today, the Supremes wrote "anonymity
is the shield from the tyranny of the majority." The case is an
important First Ammendment, free speech case about political
leafleteers. Grex could use a new leaf.
|