|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 177 responses total. |
janc
|
|
response 75 of 177:
| 
Sep 17 14:37 UTC 1996 |
Also, I want to go forward with the installation. Turning anonymous reading
back on is really easy (make a link, edit the intro text to tell people about
it). So the plan I described above is obviously not final.
|
russ
|
|
response 76 of 177:
|
Sep 17 15:04 UTC 1996 |
I just got proof this morning that Grex is NOT too small to attract
the attention of spammers. See ~russ/public/spam.
|
ladyevil
|
|
response 77 of 177:
|
Sep 18 03:24 UTC 1996 |
Alright, let me make myself clearer.
As long as Backtalk does not allow anonymous reading, I welcome it to
Sexuality. If it ever gets turned on, I want Sexuality taken off immediately,
for picospan users only. Is that a clear statement? Is there any confusion
over what I just said? (Not WHY I said it- some of you will never understand,
i suspect).
Oh, and if I remember right, there were plenty of anti-guest account
sentimentsd back when that was being discussed seriously. I wasn't amongst
themn then, because I hadn't thought of these implications.
|
tsty
|
|
response 78 of 177:
|
Sep 18 08:22 UTC 1996 |
i vociforiously protest unilateral dictates about 'opening all conferences
into Backtalk" reagardless of the code-prowess of the author.
THIS IS A STRONG PROTEST!
now you have one.
|
scg
|
|
response 79 of 177:
|
Sep 18 13:55 UTC 1996 |
So so far we have a couple of people who strongly object, but refuse to say
they object? We also have far more people, as far as I can tell, who do like
the idea, and have good reasons for that. Hmm... I wonder which ones I should
listen to.
|
brighn
|
|
response 80 of 177:
|
Sep 18 14:03 UTC 1996 |
DAMMIT, steve, is it wax in your ears, or is that where you keep your dick?
I *have* said, very clearly, why i object...
HOW MANY TIMES do i have to explain it before King Gibbard decides that i
have spoken?
(i'm assuming you mean, objectiong to the anonymous read, since tsty seems
to be the onlyone objecting to opening all conferences... or does tsty count
as a couple of people now?)
|
janc
|
|
response 81 of 177:
|
Sep 18 15:07 UTC 1996 |
I understand brighn's position and ladyevil's position and I believe that they
are reasonably content with the current proposal, which will not allow
anonymous access to any conference. Users will have to create Grex accounts
using the existing newuser programs and log in with that login and password
before Backtalk will do anything at all for them.
I don't understand anything at all about tsty's objections. As far as I can
tell, TS is asking us to abandon the Backtalk project because he doesn't like
it. I would suggest that "strong protests" are generally distinguished more
by the strong arguments that they contain than by the capital letters they
contain.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 82 of 177:
|
Sep 18 17:57 UTC 1996 |
Jan, why don't you enter an item asking for a show of hands on
the anonymous issue? I sense there are more than three of us who would
like to see anonymous reading made available.
|
tsty
|
|
response 83 of 177:
|
Sep 18 18:33 UTC 1996 |
teh strong protest was teh "all conferences" aspect. janc and i are
discussing some things currently.
"abandon" is the opposite of my posture, wehre the hell did that come from?
|
brighn
|
|
response 84 of 177:
|
Sep 18 21:41 UTC 1996 |
due to the nature of our concerns, mary, i should think unanimity would be
the preferred stance for anonymous reading, not majority... certainly the
majority of those present in conversation favor anonymous reads.
(even *i* don't need a vote to know that)
maybe we should have a vote as to whether we should be unanimous on this issue
to go forward with it? =}
|
janc
|
|
response 85 of 177:
|
Sep 18 22:28 UTC 1996 |
I'm not in charge here. I'm just looking for the simplest way to go forward
with bringing Backtalk up. The technical capability exists to allow anonymous
reading though Backtalk. Allowing that is clearly a larger departure from
the status quo than not allowing it. My personal inclination would be to turn
it on, but in the face of controversy I'm willing to take the conservative
approach. Anyone who wants to take a poll or a vote is welcome. Anyone who
wants to bring this before the board is welcome. All I really care about is
that this small issue doesn't get in the way of the larger project. I'll set
it up anyway the people here want it set up.
Re #83: I got that from reading your response (and first Email). If you
protest turning it on, then it is reasonable to assume you don't want it
turned on. In retrospect it may be that you were protesting not the
decision, but the fact that I made it. I really haven't the faintest idea.
You don't say and I don't read minds.
|
scott
|
|
response 86 of 177:
|
Sep 19 00:12 UTC 1996 |
I'm all for anonymous Web access.
|
ladyevil
|
|
response 87 of 177:
|
Sep 19 00:31 UTC 1996 |
What tsty is protesting is something I find a bit heavy-handed, too..
Forcing active conferences into backtalk.
I have stated the conditions I will sit still for regarding the Conference
that i fair witness and Backtalk, IE no anonymous read, and Sexuality is
openly available.
If anonymous read gets turned on at some point in the future, I want Sexuality
immediatey and without trouble REMOVED from what Backtalk can access, and be
only available through picospan.
If you are saying that the Fair Witness of a given conference will have no
say over this, than I think your precious project needs to STOP RIGHT HERE
while we discuss it.
|
tsty
|
|
response 88 of 177:
|
Sep 19 06:05 UTC 1996 |
read: "ALL CONFERENCES"
clear enough? no, let me make it clearer: "ALL"
and, btw, i seriously doubt that there is/was any protestabout
turning on Backtalk. in fact, if you read closely you should read that
i *commend* Backtalk - multiple times, in public and in email.
maybe it doesn't even take a close reading to discern that.
|
srw
|
|
response 89 of 177:
|
Sep 19 06:24 UTC 1996 |
TSTY you are not clear. Please use complete sentences. These sentence
fragments are not making any sense. It sounds like you object to all
conferences, but I think you are trying to say something different.
I can't read minds either.
I fully understand Selena's position, perhaps because she uses complete
sentences. I can't say that I agree with her, but I am, like Jan, not in
charge. I will not vote on this question if it is brought before the board,
because I am a co-author of Backtalk.
Basically, I agree with what Jan said.
|
scott
|
|
response 90 of 177:
|
Sep 19 10:58 UTC 1996 |
Does a FW "own" a conference, so that they may decide whether or not to allow
or deny forms of access? I can understand Selena's objection as a
participant, but I don't like the idea that because she is FW, she can dictate
what access *other* participants may use.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 91 of 177:
|
Sep 19 17:30 UTC 1996 |
My concept of a FW is a volunteer that assists all users of a conference
without showing preferences. However I do agree that anonymous access can
affect the way in which participants in a conference behave, which will
change the nature of the conference. The question is, who has a say in
changes that affect the nature of conferences? A FW might have invested
a lot of effort in guiding a happy conference (I don't know of any, but let's
just say for the sake of argument...), and therefore I would expect that FW
to be properly concerned about external changes that will affect the
conference, and since the FW is a volunteer, and volunteers are the lifeblood
of an organization like Grex, some significant consideration should be shown
to them.
|
janc
|
|
response 92 of 177:
|
Sep 19 17:43 UTC 1996 |
Though it's not very relevant here, I personally am strongly opposed to the
notion that fairwitnesses own conferences. I see a bit of a spectrum on that,
with some conferences being public playgrounds where the fairwitness has
little more than a janitorial role (agora, coop, sexuality) and a few
conferences being sort of personality conferences whose style and ton is set
by a particular users (enigma, accordian). In the latter case, I'd tend to
defer more to the fairwitnesses opinion of what the conference should be like.
In the former case I'd really want to see a position evolved from a consensus
of the users of that conference.
But the issue here isn't about what the conference is like. It's about how
users access the conference. With Backtalk we give users the the choice of
either
(1) Using a telnet client to connect to Grex and typing Picospan commands
to read the conferences.
(2) Using a web client to connect to Grex and using mouse clicks on
Backtalk's buttons to read the conferences.
What business is it of the conference fairwitnesses what interface the user's
prefer to use? Should conference fairwitnesses be allowed to say "Only
Procomm users may enter my conference. No Telix users allowed."? Of course
not.
|
janc
|
|
response 93 of 177:
|
Sep 19 17:54 UTC 1996 |
Rane slipped in. At this point I am not proposing anonymous access. Backtalk
users will have to take out a Grex account the same way Picospan users do,
and will have to supply their login and password before doing anything with
Backtalk.
Though I don't think fairwitnesses need to have any special influence over
this issue, but certainly all users may have some cause for concern. If you
make access easier, you start getting a different "class" of users. Is that
a better class? A worse class? Just a different class? I don't know. Can't
tell till we try it. But personally I strongly believe in making Grex as
easily accessible to as many people as possible. I think that having an
easier to use interface available, it would be absurd to withhold it from
users.
If we get into a strategy of deciding piecemeal which conferences should be
Backtalk accessible we get into a real hash of elitest stupidity, where we
say "No, you're a mere backtalk user, you can't access my conference unless
you first master the complexities of Picospan." That's really revolting.
|
russ
|
|
response 94 of 177:
|
Sep 19 18:13 UTC 1996 |
But do you really WANT to make Grex as easily accessible as possible?
Easy access, by itself, doesn't add much. The quality of Grex, relative
to other sites, is due in part to the number of skills which have to be
mastered to take part. Making access easier also means opening it to
people who don't want to learn anything or do much of anything except
have their desire for attention catered to. The easiest and most common
way to get attention is to act out; j0ker666 is a prime example.
Do you want to make the conferences as accessible to him as party?
How about ten thousand more of him?
The disk is full, the ports are full... quantity is not in short supply.
What Grex needs is quality. How about shutting down the off-continent
users who only come to Grex for e-mail? That will free up disk and ports
that could be used by true members of the cyber commmunity.
|
janc
|
|
response 95 of 177:
|
Sep 19 18:40 UTC 1996 |
I think that is a valid argument and a potential issue. I think Backtalk may
cause problems, perhaps some of that sort. Don't know till we try it.
I think that at some point in the future most people who want email will have
ISPs of one form or another, and the need for Grex to offer email service will
decline. I don't think we are at that point yet. I think it is great that
Grex can offer email, especially to local dial-in users.
|
remmers
|
|
response 96 of 177:
|
Sep 19 19:24 UTC 1996 |
If I'm reading Selena correctly, she's objecting to Backtalk
access to the conference only if it permits "anonymous" reading,
i.e. reading without a Grex login id.
I still don't understand the reason for this sort of objection.
"Anonymous" read AND WRITE access to all Grex's public
conferences has been available for years, since you don't have
to give your real name or any information about yourself when
you run newuser.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 97 of 177:
|
Sep 19 19:48 UTC 1996 |
I'm still trying to figure out what TS is saying.....
|
kerouac
|
|
response 98 of 177:
|
Sep 19 20:42 UTC 1996 |
On fair witnessing..I dont think fw's own confs, but I think fw's have
the obligation to protect the quality of the conf. Case in point,
M-Net has a "nice" conf that IMO was almost ruined because the fw
of the "flame" conf started linking over all the items. This was all
in fun but its the sort of thing that kills confs. If I post an
abortion item in the health conf, the last thing I want is for it to
be link3ed to the religoin conf or some other place where flamers can kill
it
FW's have the or should have the ability to protect the intergrity of their
confs, and authors of items the integrity of those iems they started.
I thnk there should be a "nolink" command that would allow fw's the
ability (and item authors) to disallow other fw's other fw's from
linking items without their permission.
|
russ
|
|
response 99 of 177:
|
Sep 19 21:00 UTC 1996 |
I have long argued for such a concept on M-net, without success.
It is one of the reasons the M-Net BBS forum is dying, IMHO.
|