Monooq wrote:Btw, I also think being able to change a Handle is a good thing---contrary to what Pav said, you can't, currently. Someone should fix that. No context is lost by changing your name. And it means that when your Handle gets tied to your real name, you can hide who you are.
That sound right?
Monooq wrote: I'm just suggesting that the site would be better if it functioned differently. That's my suggestion. What do you think of my analogies from the earlier post?
ILP can't safely release that ownership because it then states that it doesn't own itself and thereby is not its own property.
Monooq wrote:tentative wrote:ILP isn't unusual in website ownership of material posted there. We could go through all the "intellectual property rights" and copyright stuff again...The website owns all rights to the material...What is ownership is a fuzzy area right now. Ask the music industry how successful they were in demanding intellectual property rights. The internet has turned ownership on its head. All the websites are doing is preserving whatever legal rights they may have until it becomes a big enough issue for congressional action...
Again, I'm fairly clear about what is the case... I'm just suggesting that the site would be better if it functioned differently. That's my suggestion. What do you think of my analogies from the earlier post?
The world would be a perfect place if it weren't for humans.
Monooq wrote:We should be able to add to, edit, or delete our posts---indefinitely. I take this as fairly intuitive; our posts are our posts. All good philosophers always have to imagine a counterargument, and I suppose it would be this: "You could damage the context of a debate". That would be true if the context wasn't always preserved by the person quoting what they are responding to.
Monooq wrote:anon wrote:I've acted poorly sometimes here at ILP. I think it's a sad day when I can just delete all the places where I acted poorly and pretend they never happened. I have to live with myself, and learn to forgive myself and move on. Internet karma. You can't erase the past, you can only try to make things better in the future. That's how it should be, because that's the way it is. It's not good to pamper a bunch of supposed adults (granted, there's a few kids here) by putting carpet on the walls of their playroom. If I say something stupid, I can apologize. If I say something wrong, I can correct myself. That's the nature of public discourse.
You certainly have, I've seem it myself. You didn't apologize though. My concern might be something more like: What if you wrote something great, that you want to sell, or put somewhere better? But you might as well not, since you can't, because it's stuck here. But this is about the principle of the thing, anon, not about you, and how you act. Creative control.
Monooq wrote:My analogy doesn't nearly capture the reasons for thinking you should allow editing, deleting, and other things. The main reason is because, intuitively, what you put here is still yours. That's why if someone from the site were to say, "but you're ruining my product!"---I wouldn't be that moved, because it's not their product. (And that's why I'm not that moved by what you and they are saying).
There are other reasons as well,
If the site operated more like a forum, rather than depository claiming ownership as soon as you click 'Submit', you might get people sending better and more interesting material, knowing that they'd be able to take it back and find a better venue for it if they wanted to. I'm thinking of papers, creative writing, and such-like. You'd have it for awhile, in that case, but not forever---since it's not yours.
Monooq wrote:You certainly have, I've seem it myself. You didn't apologize though. My concern might be something more like: What if you wrote something great, that you want to sell, or put somewhere better? But you might as well not, since you can't, because it's stuck here. But this is about the principle of the thing, anon, not about you, and how you act. Creative control.
That's not an improvement. You don't even say it's a certainty, and even if you did *promise*, you'll forgive some possible person for not taking you at your word. Not to mention that you must have better things to do. In a nutshell, your granting that you'll control a person's content how that person wants, when the person wants, on their behalf, is just an admission that the person should have creative control. At this point, try not to reuse a bad argument that's already been dealt with. But I'm glad we're starting to get some intuitive agreement.
we already agree that my suggestion is an improvement
Jayson wrote:Oh, and btw Monook: The reason that editing is limited hasn't anything to do with who owns what.
It has to do with Carleas' final decision on the matter of continuity, as you suspected at the beginning.
And while you cite quote as the function that removes this from being a problem, it doesn't.
And I can personally share that in my time as moderator, my opinion on the matter changed from more along your line of thinking to Carleas' line of thinking.
The reason is that, as a moderator, I've seen the train wreck that occurred when someone went back and placed a "", or "..." on all of their posts after being involved in several conversations.
Even after I was moderator, infinite editing was allowed.
After further abuses in quite a few cases, it was limited to 48 hours so that people couldn't fume out for whatever random reason from ILP and on their way out just "", or "..." all of their posts, or a huge chunk of them.
So while it seems like a good idea; I can say that I've seen first hand cases where the staff at ILP has continually been shown that it does not work.
Monooq wrote:1. Quoting preserves context to the extent that whatever is diminished is so outweighed by the gains in creative control. And quoting is not hard (as Faust seemed to say!). It's just a button. It allows the person to say, "You wanna know what I'm responding to...here it is". Straightforward enough.
2. The "destroying context" objection assumes that the context is yours to preserve. Intuitively, we've already agreed that it belongs to the participants, not ILP. Hence, I made my argument by analogy of the marriage scenario. One person destroying a marriage is bad, but it is far worse to force people to preserve the marriage when one doesn't want it.
3. There are other obvious reasons why this objection is bad. For instance, the sort of context that's likely to be damaged is not one that's worth preserving in the first place. Do you think that if someone edits out their swear words, catastrophe is going to befall the site? Probably not. Hence why I made the analogy of the guy snatching and grabbing candies. Those candies are bad for you....and right now ILP is acting like the fat man.
So, that's why I suggested not reusing a bad reason. --I've already made all these points. Try not to just ignore them and dig your heals in. After all, we already agree that my suggestion is an improvement, we just disagree about how to put it into practice. And it's no wonder, relinquishing control is hard.
Monooq wrote:If you don't want to quote, don't. Probably you should just quote the main/central idea, that you're responding to. Only_Humean is good at that. You don't need to quote everything to preserve context. Regardless, the context is not simply yours.
The only thing quoting destroys is the argument that creative control "destroys context". As I told Only_Humean, you shouldn't make "the perfect" the enemy of "the slightly better". If someone quotes me, it's now part of their post. Oh well, nothing's perfect.
If I eat dinner at your house, does that mean that I am your slave? Can't I leave in disgust if you've overcooked my filet? You make possible the dinner, and you have me over---but I'm not doing the dishes. Sorry. I'm bad like that. Do you have a problem with all the other arguments I made against this? The content belongs to the participants. Think of my marriage analogy. Think fat man. Think the book. Use your intuitions.....this is all old stuff. It's tiring. Anybody who reads this thread carefully is going to know I've already answered questions you continue to ask.
Oh my god. Are you rejecting my argument by analogy by saying that the government should force married partners to stay together? Find a disanalogy, or else stop asking me to repeat myself.
It's not a strawman. This is what creative control involves.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users