Conference hydra::dejavu

    My feelings:
    
    1) This is a good note conference; the first one I check.  Anything
    that will keep it going is worthwhile.
    
    2) I am perfectly comfortable with everything I've written into
    the conference, but then, I'm not everyone.
    
    3) _If necessary_, restriction would be better than deletion.  Not
    having restrictyions is okay, provided having an open file doesn't
    jeopardize it.
    
    4) Would restriction insure the conference against deletion?  If
    so, then maybe we'd better.
    
    In sum: it would be better an open conference, but if it's a choice
    between a restricted conference and no conference, I'd have to go
    with a restricted one.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    To the best of my knowledge this conference is not in danger of
    deletion.  The suggestion of restricting it was to give people who
    are uncomfortable entering notes in an open conference a chance
    to be heard.  I would like for anyone who has anything to contribute
    to be able to do so without anxiety.
    
    		Dave

    I am so glad that this note file is not in danger because even though
    I don't contribute to it, I read it faithfully.  I read all books
    on the occult and have even studied under Laurie Cabot.  I do not
    read cards or tell fortunes and we're not supposed to discuss what
    we have learned, so that is the reason for my silence.
    So, like Steve, if this file should ever become in danger of deletion,
    I want to be registered to receive it.
    
    		Fran

    What is involved in a "resrticted" conference?  How can new people
    desiring to enter it find out about it and join up?
    
    Marcia

    Re .3:
    
    >So, like Steve, if this file should ever become in danger of deletion
    >...
    
    Hold on!  When did _I_ become in danger of deletion?  :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    re: .4 Restricted conference
    
    With a restricted conference, nobody can access the conference who
    hasn't been registered by a moderator using the ADD USER command.
    People could find out about it in the EASYNET_CONFERENCES file where
    this file was originally announced.  The people who already read
    this file would be given ample time to send me mail requesting to
    be registered.
    
    		Dave

    Why should we worry about people who are uncomfortable participating
    in this notesfile.  If they are then they don't have to participate.
    
    Leave it open for those of use who are comfortable and let the others
    do as they wish.

    This comes under the catagory of violence/sex on TV.  If you don't
    like it don't watch it!
    
    Steve

How many more people would actually begin to contribute if we 
made it a registered users notes file?  And how many potential 
contributors would we lose if it were no longer open?  Obviously 
there's no way to answer the latter question, but I raise it 
because another important issue is maintaining the vitality of 
this conference.

I think the more open a conference is, the more likely people are 
to contribute, which I feel is an important consideration.

/chuck

    I agree that the more open a conference is, the better it will be.
    However, I do not hold to the belief that if someone feels
    uncomfortable participating, that they should just not participate.
    In conferences, especially ones that delve into personal experiences,
    there is much to be learned.  We could be stopping ourselves from
    learning more if we choose not to include people who might have
    some great experiences to share with us.
    
    It is a difficult decision.  If it is decided that the conference
    should be "protected" in some way, please include me on the list
    as one of the users.  Thank you.
    
    Dale
    

I sort of started this.  I sent to Dave and to Bill Jackson (who "owns"
KRYSTL) a note expressing my concern that people might be avoiding posting
because of a fear of being labeled a "nut".  I've wondered this since I first
started reading DEJAVU, and a number of recent events brought it to a head.
I also proposed a solution and asked for their reactions.

The idea would be to establish a "privacy" gateway on KRYSTL.  Without
going into details, people could register pseudonyms (necessary to avoid
abuse, I'm afraid), then use the gateway to post notes, receive and send
mail all under the pseudonym.  All this would take place without human
intervention so privacy would be maintained.

This would *not* be absolutely secure, of course.  The maintainer would at
times discover people's identities in the course of keeping things working;
it would be open to any knowledgeable person with sufficient access
privileges on the host machine; and it could be penetrated by any
determined cracker.  It *would* provide some privacy.

For a variety of reasons Bill felt that he could not allow that system to
operate on KRYSTL at this time, and sent me and Dave mail saying so.  I
guess Dave assumed that that killed the privacy gate idea, and decided to
ask DEJAVU about the alternative response of a restricted access conference.

I agree with others who have already posted, that this would do little to
solve the problem and much to decrease the usefulness of DEJAVU.

However -- it is not really necessary for the privacy gateway to be on
KRYSTL, this is simply preferable because it reduces the total network
traffic involved.

The negatives: it would be a lot of work to set up; it could be abused;
if overused it might eat up system resources on the host machine.

QUESTIONS --

	1) Is there really a problem?  Do you think that there are people
	    out there who are afraid to post in general to DEJAVU, or are
	    afraid to speak out on some issues?  Are there enough of them
	    to make it worth the effort?  (I don't want to seem cold about
	    it, but spending possibly hundreds of hours of effort to allow
	    one person to post occasionally doesn't seem worth it).

	2) A simpler solution would be for people to volunteer to act as
	    a buffer for others, as Steve Kallis recently did.  If the
	    answer to (1) is "yes" is this an adequate solution?

	3) If the privacy gateway seems desirable, does someone have a
	    machine which could be used as the host?  The gateway will have
	    to be able to create accounts, will take some permanent disk
	    space (I don't think very much), and will need to temporarily
	    buffer more files (size dependent on size of mailings and
	    postings).  People would *not*, however, have general access
	    to the machine by virtue of having a "pseudonym" account.
	    Ideally, the host machine should be fairly close (in network
	    distance) to KRYSTL to reduce network loading.

Reactions?

		    Topher

	    If there's an overall theme to this file, it's mystery.
	This encompasses both psychic phenomena and the occult.  It
	seems to me that those who find this file controversial
	focus on the occult.  If anyone were to attack this file
	on such grounds, they should realize that they would be
	suppressing free discussion of psychic phenomena (which, as
	far as I know, is not so controversial).
			<_Jym_>

    Do you really think restricting this conference will preclude the
    event that caused the Sexetra problem.  I don't think so.  If an
    individual wants to abuse this conference they will.  
    
    It would seem that the energy would be best used by reminding everyone
    every once in a while that we are using corporate resources.  We
    all have to be responsible and above all mature.  The only way to
    keep the notesfile is to stay out from under managements nose.

    DEC management does not, so far, explicitly disapprove of
    non-work-related notesfiles.  Indeed, there are some managers who
    RUN "frivolous" notesfiles, and fairly high-placed administrators 
    who clearly tolerate them.  Policies can, of course, change, but 
    until they do I think that privacy gateways and restricted conferences 
    are a bad idea.  They give an appearance of guilt.  They are borrowing
    trouble.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Speaking personally (not as moderator),  I think we should leave
    things the way they are.  This file has been doing well as an open
    conference and I feel that it is in no more danger than any other
    non-work related conference.  I think Topher's suggestion of having
    people act as a buffer to enter notes for other people is a good
    idea.  I would be glad to post any notes for anyone who wishes to
    remain anonymous.
    
    		Dave

    There's *always* time to panic.
    
    I would rather this notefile remain open, but if it must be
    restricted in some way, I would still like to be a part of
    it, so count me in.
    
    							Ann B.

    re: .14
    
    I, too, would be willing to post notes for others who might be afraid
    to post them personally.
    
    Marcia

I also tend toward keeping this notesfile open (people in my 
department labeled me a "nut" a long time ago anyway ;-) ).

I think it's worthwhile to have an agreed upon "Plan B" in case 
things really do heat up.  It should be simple and easy to 
implement.  My suggestion would be for the moderator to keep a 
list of those who want to be notified in case the file has to be 
made private, then simply notify everyone on the list the file 
needs to be set private (but you have access to it because you're 
on the list).  Then if notesfiles come under fire, this one would 
have been set private.  If the powers that be want to get rid of 
all nonwork notesfiles, then all this discussion is academic 
anyway.

The reality is that only one person has the authority to say no 
more nonwork notes files (with the power to enforce it) and he's 
very unlikely to do it (he knows better than to get involved in 
the working of Digital on that level).  So I doubt that much is 
going to happen other than perhaps the distribution of yet 
another Digital nonpolicy (such as the nonsmoking nonpolicy).

Last, I would suggest someone start a separate note stating 
they're willing to be surrogate noters.  Include your physical 
location so if someone is really nervous about submitting a note, 
they can meet you in person to calm their fears.

Let's continue to enjoy this exchange...

Chuck

It seems to me that two rather different issues have become confused.

The first issue (which inspired me to send a note of concern to Dave, which
in turn inspired him to start this topic) is that there may be people who
are nervous about posting to DEJAVU.  The only relevance of the SEXetera
incident is that it may encourage these feelings by provoking the image
of an official Big Brother sitting in judgment of these conferences.

The second issue is whether or not there is any danger of DEJAVU being shut
down by the powers-that-be at DEC.  The SEXetera incident is a direct
indication that these fears are not entirely unfounded.

The privacy gate idea, whether automatic or by helpful DEJAVUers reposting
for people, was only meant to address the first issue.  If this is a real
problem then I think, in one of its two forms, that it might help.

If care is not exercised it could exacerbate the second problem, however.
People posting from behind the "shield" of the privacy gate could act
irresponsibly and give offense.

Making the conference restricted *might* decrease the probability of DEJAVU
being closed down in a SEXetera like incident.  As I understand it, however,
it would not have helped in the specific incident which culminated in
SEXetera's removal.

Although making DEJAVU unavailable for casual browsing may give people a
very slight amount of additional confidence, it would discourage similar
people from even *reading* it, since they would have to register interest
and be placed on a list to do so.  The best tool I know for people to gain
the confidence to post to DEJAVU is for them to quietly read it for a while.
Overall then, even ignoring other arguments against making DEJAVU closed,
I think that this is a poor solution to the problem.

The next two replies discuss each of these two problems and specific solutions
for them.

	    Topher

The first problem is to encourage "shy" people to post to DEJAVU.  For
now a list of people who are willing to confidentially repost things sent
to them.  People can then choose someone on the list who they feel
comfortable with and/or are close to them in network distance.

Rather than ending up with a whole bunch of separate notes from volunteers,
anyone who is willing to provide this service should send me mail to that
effect.  At the end of a week, I'll post a note containing the complete
list. Amendments (additions, deletions, and change of addresses) can be
placed on that topic as replies after that.

Anyone volunteering for this implicitly agrees to the following:

    1.  That they will keep the identity of the person for whom they are
	posting in strict confidence.  This means for, example, that they
	will not print out a copy of the posting with the person's name
	still attached.

    2.	That they will, as quickly as possible, repost notes that they
	receive, and appropriately forward mail responses.  The latter
	requires that some record of the original posters mail address
	be kept.  Anyone who requires that this not be done should
	include an indication of that in their note (this should be
	posted so that people will not bother to send responses).

    3.	The reposters will have to take some responsibility for the
	material they post for others (they will be held responsible by
	some in any case).  This means that they have the right and
	responsibility to refuse to repost any material that they consider
	inappropriate, either because it is potentially offensive or because
	it is irrelevant to DEJAVU.  Reposters do agree, however, to quickly
	inform anyone who they refuse to repost for, the reasons for that
	refusal.

I would also like to hear from anyone who feels nervous about posting to
DEJAVU.  I will keep nothing except a count, I'm curious about whether this
is a real problem.  People who respond by mail to me will be assumed to
feel that the reposting idea solves their problem.  Anyone who doesn't want
to take the "risk" of sending me mail, can call me at DTN-225-5819 (that's
(617)568-5819).  Anyone in an open office can simply say something cryptic
like "I think you're plan is/isn't a good one".  If "manual" reposting
doesn't help you, then give me some indication whether an automatic gateway
would.  Remember that all of this is "hypothetical": I'm interested in
whether or not you would be willing to post IF you felt you had something
to say.

Comments?

		Topher

The second problem involves the possibility of DEJAVU being "banned" by
the powers that be.  SEXetera being deleted because of a note which was
seen in hard copy by a non-reader who was offended has raised this
specter.

There are two "policies" which might result in DEJAVU being "banned".

One is that conferences would be deleted which were judged by Someone to
be "irrelevant", or made network inaccessible.  A broad "non-work-related"
definition of "irrelevant" is, I think, very unlikely, given the famous
"DEC culture".  I think that narrower definitions being used are almost
as unlikely.  However, in this case DEJAVU, given the prejudice against
the occult in some quarters, would be a prime candidate for removal.
Overall, though, I think that the risk is small.

Another possibility, considerably more likely, is that "non-work-related"
conferences would be restricted during prime working hours.  This, though
inconvenient (I've noticed that a lot of the postings are made over the
lunch hour), would not be too serious.

In any case, there is not much that can be done if the general charter of
the file is going to be judged.

The second policy, much more likely than the first, is that any conference
which "legitimately" (legitimacy judged by Someone again) offends someone
will be deleted.

We can do something here.

Almost anything you can say *might* offend someone.  There are some
guidelines which if followed will probably keep us safe:

    1)	Don't denigrate any group (y'know race, color, etc.).

    2)	You can disagree with a religious belief ("I don't think that
	Scientologist's E-meters are valid") but don't put down the holders
	of that belief (e.g., "Scientologists are so stupid that they
	believe ...").  For that matter, the same goes for non-religious
	beliefs.

    3)	If you disagree with someone's posting, argue with their ideas not
	the person.  Avoid attributing motivations to the poster (e.g.,
	"So-and-so says that only because he is afraid of necrophiles").

    4)	If you think that something *might* offend a particular DEJAVU'er
	send them a copy and ask, even if you think that the chances are
	small that they would be offended.

    5)	If you are unsure in general, send a copy to someone you trust.
	Ultimately, Dave, as moderator, has final say-so about the contents
	of this conference so he is a good one to ask.

We should keep in mind that Dave has the say-so about the contents this
conference.  Whenever you post, you are giving him the implicit right to
delete anything he feels is inappropriate.  You can disagree with him,
but do not try to "get around it" by, for example, reposting without his
permission.  His decisions are absolute and you should not be offended.
Remember that his decisions are based on politics, which are *always*
arbitrary.  If you object strongly enough, you can always start your own
notes conference.  (I should add for anyone who is new to this conference
that, to the best of my knowledge, Dave has never invoked his veto right).

		    Topher

I should add that any "shy" people wishing to call me at home in the
evening are welcome to do so -- (617)646-4018.

		Topher

    	By the gist of things so far, it doesn't look like this conference
    is going to be restricted, but I just thought I'd add...the work
    involved in moderating a restricted conference is MUCH more than
    a non-restricted one. Certain features of VAX Notes, which will
    hopefully be changed in future versions, make it very inconvenient
    to do certain things which must be done frequently, like changing
    node names, adding node names, etc. It's not insurrmountable, but
    it is something to be considered. If there is no clear gain by doing
    it, I'd advise against it.
    
    	Ed
    

    As a brand new reader of Deja Vu (and VAXnotes period), ignorant
    of political/policy issues related to a notes conference, I feel
    it is vitally important to keep this as accessible as possible to
    as many people as possible.  So many people are going through vigorous,
    dynamic, sometimes confusing spiritual growth these days, without
    understanding
    
    1. WHY (we are all being prepared, some more quickly than others,for
       the sweeping changes about to engulf the world; this is the 
       reason for the spiritual enlightenment sweeping the planet  
    
    2. That it is happening to all of us collectively, not just to them,
       and that it helps to have others by your side as you go througth
       this
    
    It is important for as many people as possible to be aware of and
    have access to such a wonderful thing as this conference.  When
    you think of the VITAL nature of this type of information, to do
    anything that might keep that one person from starting on the path
    (or from realizing that he's on it), could have enormous impact
    on his/her life; I would strongly recommend this conference be kept
    as open and accessible as possible.  
    Again, I am ignorant of the practicalities of maintaining a conference,
    and practicalities must prevail, being that we are using a very
    material thing to discuss very immaterial topics.
    
    Looking forward to a lot....
    
    Doug

    Re .23:
    
    The base note was written when there was some question, due to an
    unfortunate incident, when it appeared as if all non-product/market
    notes might be deleted.
    
    That situation no longer obtains.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    I'm really quite impressed by the tone of this particular discussion. 
    DEJAVU is obviously rather more a Humanist Conference than simply an 
    'Occult' one...(as the term is casually-applied by the general public.) 
    
    If wonder if the name DEJAVU works for or against, accordingly? 
    Well, it's established; it's known by its contents & tone. You know,
    I'd thought of it as a humorous non-sequitur before reading it...
                                                                        
    Do keep it open for all the preceding reasons...all worthwhile.