Conference hydra::dejavu

In note 316.32, as summarized in this topics base note, Steve Kallis
suggests that all notes should be signed.  Although I agree in spirit
with this, I wish to disagree with implied detail.

The authors of notes are potentially identified in two ways:

    1) By necessity: a NODE::ACCOUNT in the header to the note.  The
       person in question had avoided (deliberately or not) by posting
       from a guest account.  There have been several other notes posted,
       innocuously I think, from "guest" or "group" accounts of various
       kinds.

    2) By choice: by a personal signature (generally first name, nickname,
       or initials) at the bottom of the posting.  This is friendly and
       I strongly encourage people doing it (as most posters do).  This
       is a rather "conversational" conference, and the signatures give a
       feeling that we are being talked to, and possibly replying, to a
       "real person".

I can think of two reasons, beyond carelessness, why someone should seek
to be unidentified:

    1) They intend to make a posting which they either know or suspect will
       be considered abuse.  They are seeking to avoid just responsibility
       for their actions.  This is what we are worried may be the situation
       in the case of the apparent advertisement which sparked this
       discussion.  Needless to say, this is inappropriate.

    2) For privacy.  This conference deals with subjects that are extremely
       personal and subjects for which people may be stigmatized for their
       legitimate opinions.  Under these conditions I think that it is
       appropriate for people to *publicly* withhold their identities.

The appropriate mechanism in the second case *is not*, however, to use
an untraceable account.  The correct way is to ask someone in the
conference you trust, Dave Stanley (our moderator), myself or anyone else
you feel "simpatico" with, to post it for you.  That person can add a line
to the beginning explaining that they are posting it for someone who wishes
to remain anonymous.

I would urge anyone wishing to do this, however, to *not* forego the
personal signature -- instead use a pseudonym (obviously so if you wish).
As well as making it more personal (without making it less private) it
allows anyone commenting in notes, or sending mail to the "actual poster"
for forwarding to refer to the author as something other than "the author
of note xxx.yy".  Furthermore, if you post something else, people can
relate the two notes.

A further comment -- if you are thinking about posting something which you
are not sure is appropriate (e.g., your brother-in-law is selling a
*really* neat device which you think DEJAVUers may be interested in), *ask
the moderator before posting*.  It's Dave's job (volunteer, of course) to
make such judgments.

				    Topher

    Continuing the continuation --
    
    When individual accounts are used, all notes are automatically "signed"
    -- see the upper left-hand corner of this reply, f'rinstance.  On
    guest accounts or joint accounts, this isn't the case.
    
    Note, though, I _always_ sign my notes (barring one or two inadvertent
    ^Zs, and even then, I _intended_ to sign).  It's a courtesy.
    
    There are several things that can help sour a conference.  One is
    personal attack; I'm more than gratified we see little (if any --
    and I can't recall a case) of that in this conference.   A second
    is fraud/untruth; the members of this conference, even where they
    disagree, seem to respect that the other person's point of view,
    while different, isn't "obviously" wrong.  A third is argument for
    its own sake, something pleasingly absent here.  And another is
    commercialism, which might be attempting to rear its head.
    
    This is a really good conference, and as long as we're sensitized to
    possible pitfalls, it'll continue to be.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    

    Re .1:
    
    [Topher, you snuck in there before I could respond! :-)]
    
    If anyone wishes me to act as an intermediary, I'll be glad to do
    so (barring nodal breakdowns) for "too personal" questions.  I've
    dome that already, once, and am willing to do so again.  I'll even
    paraphrase it, if it's not too long [or _much_ too long :-)].
    
    But I like Topher's idea: use a pseudonym.  If you can't think of
    a pen-name and use me as a conduit [never "channel" :-)], I'll assign
    one.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

	Although I did not see the original note I do in agree with most
	of the guidelines set forth in previous notes in this topic.
	
	However, I (ME, this is personal not advice) would think 2ce of 
	sending another member of this conference something to post for me 
	because it was so intensely personal that I could not sign my name but 
	wanted to share it anyway.  Not that the people who have volunteered 
	to be the "conduit" aren't trustworthy but I wouldn't not want
	ANYONE to KNOW who posted it.  However this would pertain to
	an experience and not an opinion or endorsement.  Both of those should
	be signed especially if it is critical.  It's really easy to
	take shots if you are not standing on the front line.

	

	Question - Do you think it is appropriate to post a notice of
	someone's appearance, or special event being held in our area?
	Is it appropriate to notify the readers about someone/thing 
	we have found that we find "nifty"?  How can we best handle those
	so they don't sound like commercials.
	
	How about getting feedback on a person, event, or thing that we are
	considering seeing, attending, or buying?  This could open the
	door for an advertisement like reply.

	As a specific, I posted the note on Shirley MacLaine's appearance
	in Denver because I thought there may be 1 or more members that may be
	interested in seeing her.  Sort of like telling a friend that some-
	thing is going to happen.  

	In general (depending on what they are or how the note is announced)
	I think these are perfectly appropriate (I must because I've done
	all 3).  BTW, I'm not feeling picked on so if you are picking on me, 
	you'll have to be more blunt -)


	Jayna

    Jayna,                                              
    
    I can't speak for others, but you noted about a specific topic that
    had been noted on before.  Further, you included your personal
    impressions because you had more first hand knowledge than other
    noters.  You also included enough information for others to gain
    the same first hand experience you had for the purpose of matching
    notes later.  I don't think that is the same as the hidden note.
    That is unless Jayna is a psudo-name for Shirley :-)
    
    Marion
    
    (who_doesn't_usually_sign_her_name_for_no_particula_reason)

RE: .4
    
    All of those seem to me to be perfectly legitimate uses of the notes.
    The critical issue is personal gain (especially financial) direct
    or indirect.  The note in question *sounded* like an advertisement
    with the added "red flag" that it seemed that someone had gone to
    some trouble to avoid begin easily tracable as the source of the
    note.  I recommended it be hidden (not deleted) until it could be
    confirmed whether or not it was what it looked like it might be.
    
    There is even, in my opinion (though Dave and DEC are the arbiters)
    circumstances under which someone with financial interests can post
    information -- to wit: in clear and direct response to a question
    asked by someone else.  The note under these conditions should be
    identified as coming from someone with a direct or indirect connection
    to the "product" and should attempt to stick to the facts and to
    avoid any "hype".
    
    Finding out about opportunities is part of what this conference
    is about.
    
    					Topher