|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 106 responses total. |
snafu
|
|
response 75 of 106:
| 
Feb 8 05:08 UTC 1997 |
We could put it simply: If the FW doesn't care enough to check whether or not
the conference he's linking from is closed to anonymous readers, he/she
obviously doesn't care enough to make a good FW... Or we could do warnings
"This is your first and only warning... You linked to a closed Conference...
Next time you'll lose your FWship..." something like that...
|
mary
|
|
response 76 of 106:
|
Feb 8 13:51 UTC 1997 |
For those of you who never ever had the chance to
see how M-net evolved - no sweat - you can watch
it all on replay right here.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 77 of 106:
|
Feb 8 14:39 UTC 1997 |
<sigh> You'll notice that in #74 I was asking a question...If there is a
reason why that idea is repugnant, I would like to hear it, rather than just
hearing that it is a Bad Idea. You're right, I've never seen the situation
on M-net first-hand, so I have no way of knowing if this might lead to
something like that. Please, tell me.
|
richard
|
|
response 78 of 106:
|
Feb 8 19:53 UTC 1997 |
#76...mary, you mean how mnet DE-volved.
If an fw doesnt admit he/she linked deliberately it becomes an issue of one
person's word versus another. I REALLY dont think staff ought tobe involved
in fair witness politics at all. The conference system is supposed tobe
separate from system issues, and staff is supposed tobe involved onnly in
system issues.
|
snafu
|
|
response 79 of 106:
|
Feb 8 21:33 UTC 1997 |
Is it politics? If you linked it, you did it deliberatly... It's not a case
of linking deliberatly, but a case of "did you check to see if it was a closed
conference?"
|
remmers
|
|
response 80 of 106:
|
Feb 9 13:37 UTC 1997 |
Re #74: What I find repugnant is the idea of having to have
"conference police" at all. Grex used to be touted as "the system
with few rules". We're losing that concept, alas.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 81 of 106:
|
Feb 9 15:45 UTC 1997 |
I see...That does make sense, and ideally we would not need 'conference
police' at all, but it seems to me that, because of the distinction betweeen
anonymously readable conferences and non-anonymously-readable conferences that
would be created if this anonymous reading thing goes through, *something*
is needed to keep items from being intentionally linked from a closed to an
open conference. Ideally, we would be able to trust fw's to use their linking
priveliges wisely, but being as some people have already threatened to link
material out of 'closed' conferences, this may not be the case.
A techie question--once an item has been linked, can that link be undone?
I am actually beginning to understand better the perspective of those who
would prefer a restrictive universal policy on anonymous access to a more
permissive policy like the one being considered. Conferences having different
rules as to anonymous access does seem to open quite a can of worms...
And thank you, remmers, for explaining yourself.
|
omni
|
|
response 82 of 106:
|
Feb 9 16:12 UTC 1997 |
As far as I see this, this is much ado about nothing, and I'll tell you why.
We have one closed conf, called staff, which less than .001% of us belong
and can read. If you cannot read it, how can you link from it? You cannot.
Therefore this whole mess of linking from closed confs is a waste of time.
As I have said before, my f-w style is to use as little power as possible.
Should the heavens open and I am selected for this august post, I shall
execute my duties as cfadm in very much the same style.
|
void
|
|
response 83 of 106:
|
Feb 9 18:59 UTC 1997 |
omni, i think people are using "closed" to mean "conferences not readable
by unregistered users."
|
rcurl
|
|
response 84 of 106:
|
Feb 9 19:24 UTC 1997 |
I don't think that "conference police" would be so repugnant if it could
be handled entirely by software. Isn't that interesting....?
|
valerie
|
|
response 85 of 106:
|
Feb 9 20:24 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 86 of 106:
|
Feb 9 21:42 UTC 1997 |
query: What if the item in question linked from a closed conf was one I
entered? That is the most likely case where I might use my fw-status in
another conf to link such an item. I dont feel that just because an fw has
decided to close his/her conf, that gives them the right to dictate to me
which confs I may choose to place my own item in.
To me that goes against the very purpose of an open-access system and is
tantamount to system supported censorship. I think Valerie should re-write
the paragraph, if it mustbe included, to say that items from closed confs may
be linked to open confs if the author requests it. I dont want to
re-enter items or .etc If I post something worthwhile, I want to be able
to link or have it linked where I feel apppropriate.
|
davel
|
|
response 87 of 106:
|
Feb 9 23:40 UTC 1997 |
You might have entered it, Richard, but others responding to it in a "closed"
conference (in this sense) should be able to feel secure that it's not going
to be linked elsewhere; and IMO they shouldn't even have to worry about
whether that header, now scrolled 8 responses off the screen, said "linked
item". I oppose having *any* conferences closed to anonymous reading, myself,
but if we're going to do it, and do it for the kinds of reasons people have
raised for doing it, it's really obnoxious to think of requiring participants
to keep track on an item-by-item basis. It's not "your own item" in a sense
that gives you an unlimited right to handle *other* people's responses. May
I suggest that you learn to use the extract command, or cut-&-paste at your
end, if you object to typing your own text in? I really doubt anyone else
would object to your copying your own text - at least, object on the grounds
that it was first posted in a restricted conference.
|
dpc
|
|
response 88 of 106:
|
Feb 10 00:28 UTC 1997 |
Valerie, what was the incident that caused you to permanently leave
M-Net? I can't remember anything about it.
|
srw
|
|
response 89 of 106:
|
Feb 10 01:18 UTC 1997 |
I agree with davel on all counts in resp:87
|
richard
|
|
response 90 of 106:
|
Feb 10 01:22 UTC 1997 |
If I can freeze an item, erase an item, or retitle an item, by virtue of
having entered it in the first place, I think the authors of the software in
question implied proprietorship of individual items to the authors. After
all, the person whose name is at the top of the item should have some say.
|
omni
|
|
response 91 of 106:
|
Feb 10 04:24 UTC 1997 |
So here I am again, off in left field. Sorry about that.
The solution could be to put a small line at the very bottom of the
conference opening screen <this is a closed conference and is not intended
for reading by unregistered users>
This way there can be no misunderstanding, that <n> is a closed conf.
I of course, oppose any restriction of what can and what cannot be read.
|
valerie
|
|
response 92 of 106:
|
Feb 10 14:23 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 93 of 106:
|
Feb 10 15:52 UTC 1997 |
#87...clearly iwould announce beforehand whether I was going to link orhave
linked an item from a closedconf.
|
davel
|
|
response 94 of 106:
|
Feb 11 12:58 UTC 1997 |
It certainly was *not* clear from what you said. And announce it when &
where? Wherever, it's not sufficient, because sooner or later someone will
be reading *new* responses in that item, and won't be in a position to see
your warning. And you ignore the fact that you justify your doing so by the
fact that it's your own text you're linking, but that you're linking other
people's text just as much.
|
e4808mc
|
|
response 95 of 106:
|
Feb 11 18:17 UTC 1997 |
Yeah #94. I can't believe that richard thinks starting an item gives you
"ownership" of other people's responses.
<Catriona ponders the implications: Everyone who starts an item could then
keep richard from posting to that item. What a concept!>
|
davel
|
|
response 96 of 106:
|
Feb 12 11:52 UTC 1997 |
<drool>
|
tsty
|
|
response 97 of 106:
|
Feb 26 16:16 UTC 1997 |
welllllllllllll. letters to the editor of a newspaper/magazine/etc are
considered the property of the newspaper/magazine..... i do NOT like
the apparent parallel, however, even if #0 were an editorial.
|
valerie
|
|
response 98 of 106:
|
Feb 27 04:22 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
pfv
|
|
response 99 of 106:
|
Feb 27 16:35 UTC 1997 |
I mentioned adding a user-settable flag to picospan items/
responses in the other conf/Backtalk debate..
It seems there is no source accessible, which in itself is silly.
However, here is yet another method that would leave it up to
the user:
Convince backtalk to look at the entry title and test the first
(or last) of the string for a keyword such as "NOTWORLD" or
something akin to it. This would imply that the ITEM-author retains
complete control of his ITEM, and responses take on the same
state, but this is _STILL_ preferable to losing complete editorial
control or having to add what you folks are calling "Conf-Police".
Personally, I rarely spend the time waiting for picospan to run
and then accept my responses on grex, but if I wanted to post to
Usenet, I'd post to Usenet - this is NOT "UseNet Junior" and it's
just not sensible of the PTB to take such a decision upon themselves.
I seriously suggest you think over any and all methods to invest
the controls needed with the authors, before you swamp yer admin
or alienate your users. I still think you could use the the interim
idea of a Intro.cf which held all the world-readable entries, but
tain't my problem - work it out...
|
