|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 116 responses total. |
kerouac
|
|
response 75 of 116:
| 
Apr 1 20:07 UTC 1996 |
Brighn, I didnt say that...I never said fw's shoudlnt be able to freeze
or retire items. I dont think a poster should be able to kill an item,
either. Both fw's and posters should be able to freeze or retire items,
the poster only his own items and the fw anything deemed relevant. I'm
not being inconsistent at all. I never said either should be able to use
the "kill" command.
|
gregc
|
|
response 76 of 116:
|
Apr 1 21:43 UTC 1996 |
Kerouac, two things:
First off, to continue your book analogy, the author of a collection of other
people's work most assuredly *does* get his name on the cover of the book,
regardless of whether he has written any of the stories in the collection
or not.
Second, you are wrong about the concept "Items are individual efforts."
and "The poster of an item is like the author of a book.".
Items on Grex are most definately group efforts. It is common to see
responses that are longer than the original item, and sometimes to see
multi page responses to an item that began as 2 sentences.
Suppose I post an item that simply says:
"So, what do you all think about abortion?"
And then someone proceeds to post a 5 page reply enumerating their beliefs,
philosophy, religous outlook, etc, etc. Who has "authored" more work here?
The initiator, or the respondant?
No, to use your book analogy, the best thing that can be said is that the
items are novels, and the initiator writes the first chapter, and then
respondants write subsequent chapters. But the novel belongs to them all.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 77 of 116:
|
Apr 1 23:43 UTC 1996 |
If you don't like how someone fairwitnesses a conference - leave
the conference. Take like-minded friends with you. Eventually,
it will either get pretty lonely or only those who enjoy that
particular FW's style will be left. No muss, no fuss, and
allows something for everyone.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 78 of 116:
|
Apr 2 00:15 UTC 1996 |
Except with Agora and Coop where the FW should strive to
keep hands-off and let the users define the conference.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 79 of 116:
|
Apr 2 01:00 UTC 1996 |
re: #78......Mary, what you suggest really would lead to there being only
two or three active conferences on grex? Is that what you want? For
Grex's conferencing setup to be strong, it doesnt need redundant confs
that only serve to weaken exsisting ones and splinter the reader base.
What it needs are a core of good strong confs, all of which the users
define to a large extent. Just because one is the fw of a topical conf
doesnt mean he/she is an expert in that topic or presumes to be the most
informed person on that topic. Brighn is fw of what is now the sex conf
on grex. There need be only one sex conf here if everyone can
participate. But if Brighn insists on defining the nature of the conf, it
will become not the sex conf on grex, but "brighn's sex conf" here on
grex. I'm saying that this is not good for grex, it is not good for
conferences that cover common topical matter to be defined by the fw's.
The Accordion conf and Oathbound and Marvin confs, for instance, I would
consider a different matter, because they are clique confs, not the
official conf for one topic or another.
So I guess what I'm saying is that conferences need to be classified, and
the ones that are explicityly topical (the sex conf, the cooking conf,
the health conf, the politics conf, the history conf) should be defined
by the users and the fair witnesses should be nothing more than janitors.
The ones that are loosely defined and designed to be cliquish can be the
fw's personal prerogative. If such categorization was in place, I would
not have complained that Brighn killed my item out of AD, because AD was
clearly cliquish (although in that context it should not have had the sex
pointer)
Lastly, Gregc, on what you said, the difference is that I would never
kill an item I posted or (even if I could) censor anyone's responses.
Since I took the time to start the item and initiate the discussion, I
felt I had the right to write the last chapter *for that item* Most
authors of compendiums usually reserve themselves that privledge and I
think its fair.
|
gregc
|
|
response 80 of 116:
|
Apr 2 05:39 UTC 1996 |
Using a cheat to get the last work in an argument is very poor form.
|
brighn
|
|
response 81 of 116:
|
Apr 2 05:40 UTC 1996 |
Kerouac, honestly, if somebody enters a recipe for spam with cheese
sauce in the politics conference, that's o.k.? It's a political
statement? If you see things that way, fine, then FW as you see
fit. I see no way that such an item's existence can be justified
in such a conference. The example that started this was definitely
a gray area, but your argumentation would and has included clear
idiocies. If anybody is allowed to enter any item on any topic in
any conference, then there's no point to having topical conferences.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 82 of 116:
|
Apr 2 06:25 UTC 1996 |
Don't be so pedantic. Someone said, "Everything is connected to everything
else". There is spam and chees in politics, and politics in spam and
cheese, if you would only think about it. If someone entered a recipe for
spam and cheese sauce in the politics conference, it would be a wonderful
opportunity to open the discussion of the politics of meat byproducts, or
the cheesiness of politics. There are strange bedfellows in both the
kitchen and legislature. The "secret" of conference management is to bring
the discussion *to* the central theme, no matter what topic is entered.
Try it, instead of closing your mind to the opportunities.
|
arthurp
|
|
response 83 of 116:
|
Apr 2 22:04 UTC 1996 |
So all of kerouac's itmes *belong* to him and participation by others is
irrelevant? I guess I better not interfere with His writings, then. I do
see a clear parallelism between Kerouac's attack on Brighn, and this
situation, and I am begining to get ill.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 84 of 116:
|
Apr 2 22:54 UTC 1996 |
arthurp, there is no parallell because items and conferences are not
the same thing. And in Brighn's case, all I was objecting to was
that he killed the item, not that he linked it to hsex (I thought it
was fine that he did that) As long as users can "forget" items,
whether they exsist inappropriately in the directory of a conf is
irrelevant. Most would forget the item, and most dont do browses
anyway. So you would likely forget the item even exsisted after a
while.
I never said participation by non-posters in an item was irrelevant. For
the last time I would never, under any circumstnaces, kill an item
I posted, *because* it would kill all the responses. And I didnt freeze
item 42 to get the last word! I froze it because I thought that *I*
had personally caused so much drift in that item that it wasnt focused
anymore. When wiseguys like carson put tags on their responses like
"How many kerouacs does it take to screw in a lightbulb"...it has gotten
too personal. I honestly thought moving the discussion to another item
was the best and the right thing to do for the sake of the important
issues we should have been discussing. At the time I posted that last
response, I was upset and fully intended to stop reading coop for a
while. That item had become not about conferencing but a series of back
and forth attacks mostly about my specific ideas. Instead of offering
suggestions of their own there were just more attacks. I thought the
discussion would work better if I simply withdrew from it. So I
wanted to end the item that I started and let somebody else start it
anew. I think it was only a partially
succcesful idea but since I entered the item, and started the discussion,
I felt a proprietary responsibility to try and get the discussion re-directed.
Now if I had been fw of coop I would not have done this (freeze item 42 and
encourage re- direction of the discussion) if I was not the poster of the
item. Any FW who would interfere in such a way discourages posters from
making entries in their conf. I simply dont view fairwitnessing and item
poster'ing in the same way.
It is much harder to go and start a whole new conference than it is to
simply enter a new item. Since the discussion could be and was
continued, NOONE was hurt by my freezing item 42. It wasnt censorhip
because users dont have the ability to censor. There was nothing I as a
poster could do that would force my will on anyone else. With fair
witnesses that is not the case, and therein lies the problem.
|
brighn
|
|
response 85 of 116:
|
Apr 3 02:58 UTC 1996 |
What it comes down to, Kerouac, is that when you attack other people,
you're defending your rights as a user, and when other people attack you
with the same vehemence, it's become too personal and you freeze it.
That's what you've said in your last post.
Ah well. I'm out of this item.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 86 of 116:
|
Apr 3 04:11 UTC 1996 |
Brighn, you're wrong and you know it. You read that item. If wwhat
you say was the case, I'd have frozen that item 30 responses sooner. It
wasnt that I was fed up, its that I thought everyone was losing track
of the debate. Maybe I was wrong to freeze the item. But I thought it
was the right thing to do at the time. I dont know what else to say.
|
mdw
|
|
response 87 of 116:
|
Apr 3 07:43 UTC 1996 |
PicoSpan doesn't have any sort of configurable protection matrix;
so no, there isn't any way to keep fair-witnesses or item authors
from killing or moving items, or freezing them. The assumption
here is that people who misuse these are going to wind up unpopular
enough that peer pressure will suffice.
|
tsty
|
|
response 88 of 116:
|
Apr 3 08:29 UTC 1996 |
agreed, tnx.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 89 of 116:
|
Apr 3 20:57 UTC 1996 |
hopefully it will....
|
popcorn
|
|
response 90 of 116:
|
Apr 7 14:21 UTC 1996 |
(i'm back)
|
chelsea
|
|
response 91 of 116:
|
Apr 8 00:23 UTC 1996 |
I noticed. ;-)
(I read reverse new.)
|
adbarr
|
|
response 92 of 116:
|
Apr 8 22:13 UTC 1996 |
Just watching the shells go overhead, and wondering what I am doing here in
this trench? Prepare for ground attack?
|
chelsea
|
|
response 93 of 116:
|
Apr 8 22:40 UTC 1996 |
Arnold, I find it interesting that you see a lot of anger where
I see very little. There is difference of opinion, yes. There
are different personalities trying to make themselves understood.
There are some posts getting attention and others being ignored.
But I don't see "shells [going] overhead.
Me thinks you either are looking for anger or have a "flare"
for the dramatic. Carry on.
|
srw
|
|
response 94 of 116:
|
Apr 9 06:16 UTC 1996 |
I don't think it is overly dramatic to perceive 85 and 86 as shells being
lobbed.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 95 of 116:
|
Apr 9 12:37 UTC 1996 |
Gawd, this is where I must be really numb or something because I don't see
the kind of anger in those responses that you're (either of you) seeing.
But then I grew up with by robust communication, lively dinner table
debate, and I almost never take comments made by anyone but my closest
friends as personal. Works fine.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 96 of 116:
|
Apr 9 17:06 UTC 1996 |
Vulcans would probably not engage in the exchange in #s 85 and 86.
|
brighn
|
|
response 97 of 116:
|
Apr 9 17:57 UTC 1996 |
*nods to Mary*
*looks for Rane's pointy ears and finds none*
*hands Rane a Vulcan teddy bear and suggests he pet it*
*giggles*
|
kerouac
|
|
response 98 of 116:
|
Apr 9 19:04 UTC 1996 |
since you cant tell inflection from words very often, its easy
to misinterpret what is really only well meaning debate for personal
attacks. This is a danger in electronic communications...
|
popcorn
|
|
response 99 of 116:
|
Apr 10 08:45 UTC 1996 |
That's where the challenge in electronic communication is: making your
intentions clear. Smiley faces help....
|
