T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
243.1 | anon. notes | BRAE::BUSDIECKER | | Sun Mar 22 1987 21:09 | 6 |
|
I also support anonymous contributions, but only through the established
channels (I agree with Steve's reasoning on why the established procedure
should be used).
- Linda
|
243.2 | anonymous to all but a moderator | CADSYS::SULLIVAN | Karen - 225-4096 | Mon Mar 23 1987 13:05 | 15 |
| I agree with Steve. It is good to have a channel for anonymity,
however there is some liability involved in anything published.
Although I do not see any way that there might be any legal/dec-
policy need to contact the author of the original note (234), I
think that the channel should be there. At this point I don't see
any reason to make topic 234 hidden, but a policy should be set in
place for all future topics.
...Karen
p.s. for some reason, which I don't understand, 234.0's method of
anonymity offended me. Perhaps becuase it's not anonymous enough.
I'm glad I don't know anyone who belongs on that node, and I'm
sure glad that I don't.
|
243.3 | | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Mon Mar 23 1987 13:17 | 8 |
| I suppose I should clarify one thing. When I said I would likely
have hidden the note had it appeared in H_R, the reason would be
that the H_R moderators take personal responsibility for notes
very seriously. H_R has a posted rule forbidding anonymous notes
not contributed through the appropriate channels. Our brushes with
danger in the past have made us more sensitive and cautious.
Steve
|
243.5 | | VIKING::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Mon Mar 23 1987 14:04 | 10 |
| I prefer that anon contributions be posted thru one of the moderators,
but am prepared to tolerate those that are posted thru anon accounts
PROVIDED that the anon feature is not being used for malicious
purposes.
Given that the moderator posting the submission can keep her/his mouth
shut (and if not, a new moderator is needed!) moderator-posted material
is even more anon than if a special-purpose account is used.
=maggie
|
243.6 | alright you perp, hands up! | IMAGIN::KOLBE | Playing with Fire | Fri Mar 27 1987 16:36 | 8 |
| Speaking as system mangler myself I understand the concern about
folks creating bogus accounts. However, we have folks here at the
center that have figured out ways to fake mail addresses without
having to create accounts. There is always a way for those determined
enough to find it. I support sending to the moderator and stopping
all the guessing games, and keeping the system managers out of hot
water. The rules for EASYnet are already a hassel, lets not give
a reason to have more. Liesl
|
243.8 | FORWARD JETSAM::SYSTEM | HERBIE::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Tue Apr 07 1987 12:53 | 18 |
| re .7:
> This seems like an unenforcable rule. I will not live by it.
Does this mean you will now start creating bogus accounts in open
defiance of the request to either sign your statements honestly,
or post anonymously through a moderator?
The rule may be unenforcible, but I do not think that it is
unreasonable. Why will you not live by it? Do you only obey rules
that are enforcible?
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
243.10 | So, start your own | MAY20::MINOW | I need a vacation | Tue Apr 07 1987 14:28 | 23 |
| Tom, the problem is that, by submitting anonymously, you are breaking
an implied agreement you have with the moderators of this notesfile
to play by *their* rules.
You are perfectly free to create a WOMANNOTES notesfile "on your own
dime" and compete with this file for the attention/interest of the
Dec community. In *your* file, we would have to play by *your* rules,
here, we play by theirs.
By the way, I feel there is a need for truly anonymous notes (where
not even the moderators (or personnel) can determine the author).
Such notes, however, should be labelled as such -- not submitted
by a fake name or from a bogus node -- and treated with less respect
by a moderator (who may choose to forbid them altogether).
For example, suppose I was a rapist who wanted to explain why I was
compelled to attack women. This is certainly relevant to the purposes
of this notesfile, but I would be a fool to let anyone know who I was,
no matter how much they professed to respect my anonyminity.
Martin.
|
243.12 | | SUPER::HENDRICKS | | Tue Apr 07 1987 16:25 | 7 |
| Until a system for posting notes completely anonymously is developed
and installed, I think it would be reasonable to ask a friend to
post an anonymous note if you are not comfortable asking the
moderators.
Of course, that depends on the friend, your trust level, and how
much anonymity you are seeking!
|
243.13 | guest account could work | IMAGIN::KOLBE | Your all STARS team, CSC/US | Tue Apr 07 1987 20:36 | 7 |
| One alternative to the problem of truely anonymous notes would be
for the hosting system to provide a guest account that was available
to all. Then any entry from that account could have come from anyone.
The problem is whether the Telecomm folks would allow that. We have
some accounts like that at the center that are used to provide mail
distribution lists so anyone can send mail to the entire population
of CX03. Liesl
|
243.14 | my -$.02 | BEING::MCANULTY | sitting here comfortably numb..... | Wed Apr 08 1987 20:39 | 17 |
|
Unfortunatly, guest accounts are worse. In a simple notesfile
that is just a suggestion box, the guest account was used
horribly. (correct grammar ?)..anyways....There will always
be that hit and run incident with the notes. Once one person
gets the password, many others will soon have it, and trash
will start appearing from the account. I stick with having
Marge enter the anonymous notes (if she wants to). As far as
I can see, she has done a good job of doing it so far, and has
not divulged any identities. If someone enters a note and
has not complied with the rules of the conferece, it should
be deleted (read anonymous). After all, one shouldn't enter
a conference, without reading the rules.
Mike
|
243.15 | They are doing the job right, gentle noters. | HUMAN::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Wed Apr 08 1987 23:50 | 75 |
243.16 | | HERBIE::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Fri Apr 10 1987 13:50 | 25 |
| re .9:
Would it make any difference to you if in 1.* the word "rule" was
replaced by "request"?
Really, that is all that the moderators can do. They ask that people
abide by certain rules in the use of this conference. What is so
unreasonable?
I do not think that posting anonymously itself that is the problem
but doing so maliciously.
Who are you?
No, I was not addressing the problem of generic accounts and generic
names. I was addressing your statement that you will not obey the
rule/request about anonymous posting. Why won't you? Just because
there is no way to enforce it?
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
243.17 | Anonymous mail to moderator | TLE::FAIMAN | Neil Faiman | Fri Apr 10 1987 13:56 | 13 |
| Re the suggestion that some contributions may be so personal
that even "moderated anonymity" is not adequate (the hypothetical
"Why I am a rapist" note):
Anyone who has access to a truly anonymous mechanism could
use that mechanism to send the note to the moderator. The
posting would then still be at the moderator's discretion,
and under the moderator's control, while not giving up the
submitter's anonymity. Of course, the moderators would want
to show exceptional discretion in posting notes whose authors
even they didn't know.
-Neil
|
243.19 | How interesting... | VIKING::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Fri Apr 10 1987 16:46 | 20 |
| Is this an example of something that often happens? If it is, can
we work out ways to deal with it or is it essentially an immutable
artifact of being human?
Tom, you say in .18:
"
> Would it make any difference to you if in 1.* the word "rule" was
> replaced by "request"?
Yes it would. Polite requests are always appreciated as opposed to
demanded conformity.
"
The word "rule" is *your* word, not mine. I actually *did* say
"request". How do you suppose it got so twisted? What's going
on?
=maggie
|
243.21 | | VIKING::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Sun Apr 12 1987 14:18 | 4 |
| uh, Tom, I'm confused: the request you quoted and responded to in .7 is
not the one you now say that you meant. Could you explain?
=maggie
|
243.22 | | JETSAM::REZUCHA | | Mon Apr 13 1987 15:24 | 13 |
| I am unable to find the note to which I thought .7 was a sequel to.
The one I was searching for was the one stating that the offenders
manager would be contacted by the moderators. In a previous reply I
had asked whether anyone else remembers that note number. No one
replied and I do not have time to do a SEARCH of the conference.
This seems to be a dead issue as all vocal (?) entries have been
in support of the moderators policy and those who do not support
the moderators (if any other than myself exist) are silent.
Keeping up with this conference is a challenge!
-Tom
|
243.23 | aHA!! | VIKING::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Mon Apr 13 1987 15:42 | 11 |
| Now I think I understand better, Tom. You thought that the note
requesting that anon entries be made via a moderator somehow had the
same draconian penalties attached to non-compliance as had been
proposed for guerrilla noting in the preceding note.
Sounds like you were **really** upset by that other note.
=maggie
(The guerrila-noting note was deleted after the will of the community
became clear, btw... which is why you can now no longer find it.)
|