Yesterday, my life's like, 'Uh-oh, pop quiz!' Today it's like, 'rain of toads.'

Xander ,'Beneath You'


Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!  

We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy (Which we voted on!). If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!


DXMachina - May 05, 2003 11:24:15 am PDT #998 of 10289
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.

Proposal: That the community, if it is practical to code, allow individual threads to be designated, "Accessible only to members of the community," and restrict access to those threads only to registered users. Any such threads to be so designated shall be determined by separate proposal and vote. If the proposal passes, the coding of this feature shall be added to the features request list.


bitterchick - May 05, 2003 11:34:44 am PDT #999 of 10289

I'm against this proposal. I think that it's far too late in the development of this community to make a major change like requiring all lurkers to register.

Also I don't believe it will accomplish what people are hoping it will. There's no screening process to our registration. Anyone with a valid email address can become a member. So if a banned poster or a lurker or someone who's out to cause trouble wants to read the posts, they can. It just takes a minute or two for them to have access to it.


askye - May 05, 2003 11:36:46 am PDT #1000 of 10289
Thrive to spite them

The two threads that have been proposed so far are B'cracy and Bitches. I take it the reason for this is to stop unregistered people from reading the posts and possibly causing problems for members--which has happened.

I don't agree with the proposal, I don't see what good it will really do. Yes, we can lock the threads for member only reading but that doesn't stop anyone from registering and then lurking and still causing problems for members.

If people really wanted to they could register, find out what information they wanted to and use it.

Then there would be an indication that the harasser was a registered user but there would be no way to tell how long the harasser had been a registered member and with a lurker I'm not sure how anyone could trace who this person is.

So I don't really see how members locking threads would help.


Wolfram - May 05, 2003 11:37:26 am PDT #1001 of 10289
Visilurking

Bitterchick took the words right out of my mouth. Give 'em back!

And it may even encourage trolls to re-register just to see what's in the "locked" threads. I see no positives and only negatives.


Betsy HP - May 05, 2003 11:37:59 am PDT #1002 of 10289
If I only had a brain...

I think this proposal creates a false sense of security.

ANYTHING you say on the Internet can wind up in Google. If you're not happy about a stranger seeing it, encrypt it; otherwise, you're taking a risk.

I've certainly censored things I'd like to say to the Buffistas, and furthermore said things I should have censored; not because the Buffistas are listening, but because of the strangers who can see it ten years from now.

But the thing is, creating a protected area makes people think they don't run that risk, and they are.


Dana - May 05, 2003 11:39:23 am PDT #1003 of 10289
I'm terrifically busy with my ennui.

I'm also against it. I can almost sorta see the argument for Bureau, but then when you start getting into threads like Bitches...I've bared my soul in Natter, too. I talk about all sorts of crazy things in the fic threads, some of which could probably get me fired. It's my decision to post those things; it's my responsibility to find my comfort level and deal with any repercussions.

This isn't to say that it doesn't suck if someone I know finds the board and reads things I didn't want them to know, but I don't think registration would be a big impediment to anyone truly determined.


amych - May 05, 2003 11:40:03 am PDT #1004 of 10289
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?

I said it in Bureaublahblah, and I'll say it again here for the record. I'm against the proposal. It won't protect us, may provide the false sense of security Betsy mentions, and certainly will set a bad precedent for the community.


§ ita § - May 05, 2003 11:41:42 am PDT #1005 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

Yup. Locking Bitches? Why? 900 complete strangers can read it. It's the internet, and we're not private. If you're sensitive, don't post it. We can't protect you.

Also, protecting B'cy doesn't stop any of the issues described -- are people really holding back or feeling threatened?


Jesse - May 05, 2003 11:42:14 am PDT #1006 of 10289
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.

Like they said. If we had more restrictions on membership, I might think it was a good idea, but as it is, anyone can register as many times as they want, so it wouldn't actually keep anyone from reading, except the most casual of lurkers, and we don't care if they read it anyway.


Laura - May 05, 2003 11:42:27 am PDT #1007 of 10289
Our wings are not tired.

Been only able to visit the right column here the last few days due to craziness that is called life.

My initial instinct when I read the proposal is that the several of the newspaper websites I visit require registration to view their articles and I didn’t have a problem with registering although my participation is only as a reader. I will read the discussion over the next few days. I have a pretty solid notion of the arguments on both sides. Still not sure which way I will go.