creative control

[tentative]

While it's true that you are the originator of your posts, I have bad news for you. Anything posted here belongs to ILP, and the owner/adminisrator makes all decisions concerning content.

[PavlovianModel146]

Tentative has pretty much got it.

Although, it's not just the property of ILP, imo, because ILP (Excepting Staff Discussion, Quarantine, and Rant House) is a public site. In other words, the information belongs to everyone because everyone has access to it as soon as you post it.

The only area where I would disagree is if a post was personally identifiable, either within the post, or via your Handle. Of course, you can change your Handle at any time, and Staff would certainly be willing to Edit Out personally identifiable information from a post. I think I can actually speak for Staff on that one.

The policy is a near Universal on Message Boards. Other than the rare exceptions that will let you Delete an entire Account (Including Posts), at best, you'd have to go through and Edit each individual post one-by-one. Of course, we have an Edit block (either 24 or 72 hours, don't remember) preventing that. Again, in extenuating circumstances, we would Edit it for a person, upon request.

[Faust]

No matter who posts belong to (and I agree with tentative here), allowing unlimited editing causes problems. Responders shouldn't have to quote if they don't want to. The context isn't always preserved. And anyone is free to emend any of their posta with another post.

[PavlovianModel146]

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.

I phrased myself incorrectly, what I basically meant is we would change your Handle if it is personally identifiable and you didn't want it to be. We might change it for other reasons, upon request, that's probably case-by-case.

The only negative effect would be thread continuity, because you'd have quotes attributed to people who are, strictly speaking, no longer posting (and, by appearances, never posted) in the thread. I can say with some confidence that we probably wouldn't change someone's handle more than once...

[Jayson]

That sound right?

No.

[tentative]

Editing has to have some limits. Nothing pisses me off more than trying to respond to a post that is being edited two or three times and changing the original context that I'm trying to respond to. We have a couple of members who abuse editing frequently. I often have to edit because my @$%#%!! keyboard doesn't know how to speel and I'm too lazy to read what I've written before I hit submit.

I think perhaps the best idea is for members (especially me) to write clearly, methodically, and deliberately so that editing, deletions, or any other changes aren't necessary. It's obvious that sloppiness, both in writing and thinking, is everywhere on this site. Making that bad habit even easier prolly isn't a great idea. We may not like the limitations of posting control, but it beats the hell out of letting the batshitcrazies making it even more difficult to find coherency inside a thread.

[Jayson]

ILP acts like it owns the content because it does.

[Jayson]

I don't bother with it because it's not a possibility.
If you want to hear the long line of reasons, then write Carleas about it.
But ILP will simply not be releasing that standard in any manner you are looking for.
I'm not here debating or waxing philosophy. I'm telling you that your "suggestion" won't happen so it's rather pointless to go on and on about it as if reasoning will suddenly change anything.

[Jayson]

Sorry if you find it rude to tell you that the forum policy will not change on the matter, so the idea that you will get "help" is not possible.

You want a change that I once inquired on when I first arrived.
I'm telling you, take it or leave it, that waxing ideals on the matter isn't going to change that policy.
If you just feel like banging your head against a virtual wall...knock yourself out I guess.

[tentative]

Monooq,

ILP isn't unusual in website ownership of material posted there. We could go through all the "intellectual property rights" and copyright stuff again. There was a thread on it in soc about a year or so ago. It's a grey area but not legally. The website owns all rights to the material. That said, if you posted a poem or wrote a long essay and wanted to use it somewhere else, I doubt that there would be any objection by carleas or the owner of any other site for that matter. 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 - along with the judicial review process. Eventually, you may own your own work, prolly another 15 or 20 years from now. But till then, anything you write on the internet belongs to someone else, and they also control all aspects of how that material is handled.

[PavlovianModel146]

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?

In what way would it make it better?

[Jayson]

ILP can't safely release that ownership because it then states that it doesn't own itself and thereby is not its own property.
ILP doesn't own the IP.
It owns the posts.
There is a huge difference.
ILP cannot sue me for publishing a book with ideas I also wrote here.
But the posts belong to ILP.
If they didn't, then any random hacker could cite that they did not violate ILP's property rights.

[Gobbo]

ILP can't safely release that ownership because it then states that it doesn't own itself and thereby is not its own property.

... come again?

edit: I get it now. I'm slow.

[tentative]

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...

tentative,

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 problem with freedom is the abuse. Some people could handle it, but most couldn't or wouldn't. I don't have any problems with your suggestions other than the ugly reality that they wouldn't work in too many cases. If you've ever visited one of the flame sites, you have the perfect example of my reservations. The world would be a perfect place if it weren't for humans. There is a whole shitload of things that would function better if we weeded out the shitheads, but we drag them with us anyway. Eventually we may evolve intelligence, but I doubt if any of us will be around to see it, So grit your teeth and suffer along with the rest of us. If you want to do something creative, hide it in a closet. Otherwise, it will be all over facebook or made in China...

[Gobbo]

The world would be a perfect place if it weren't for humans.

The ones who invented perfection?

Sounds false.

I think you guys should just say 'legal issues' instead of... other excuses.

[Jayson]

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.

[Only_Humean]

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.

I believe that was the case in the past, but it was abused; people deleting all their old posts by editing out all the texts. So it was changed. And people simply don't quote enough, and it's not clear enough when they do, to reconstruct a discussion.

From an ideal point of view, I agree that everyone should be able to do so freely and we would all be responsible individuals and not fuck things up for everyone else. In such a world, of course, we'd barely need any rules and laws at all. But the world is not ideal, so the choice was made as it was. A few rotten apples, and all that.

Of course, if you want an argument by analogy, you could equally argue that once you say something, you can't unsay it - your statements are yours, warts and all, and if you want to correct them, do so in a subsequent post. So we should remove ALL editing...

Are there concretely any posts you'd like to change, or do you raise it from a concern of principle?

[anon]

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.

[anon]

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.

Haha, I wasn't thinking of our own conversation. I didn't think I had to apologize for anything there. But if I said something offensive or annoying to you, I apologize right now.

I tried to convey what I consider the principle of the thing. It's public discourse. That's the principle. I related some stuff about myself for example only.

If you wrote something really great, and you want to sell it, just do it. Why not? So what if it's here too? Or if that really does pose a problem, maybe you could PM Carleas and see if you can work something out?

[Only_Humean]

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.

This isn't a publishing site. And if it were, you'd be even more restricted in your abilities to edit.

If you have something to say, something that you want to be personally identified with and something which you wish to retain control over, you don't go printing it in online discussion boards - you need to find a way to publish it, so that you can retain creative control.

If someone on a website that allows editing of old posts then copies it wholesale and pastes it over the top of an old post, claiming that they wrote it first, it's clear - that site allows editing, the claim has practically no legal force. If you want to be a reputable publishing site, you disallow such editing and put a version tracking/control system in place, it gets much more strict. There are journal sites out there, but this isn't one of them.

In any case, what's "yours" can be quoted, so that it's no longer "yours". You've placed it into the (semi-)public discussion arena, for discussion. And if ILP granted full IP rights for each user to "their" text, it is suddenly open to a raft of legal liabilities and responsible for maintaining the data - a user could in theory sue for any loss of data by corruption or crash. And in any case, the site is treated as the owner in some sense - if someone posts, say, child porn, or licence key cracks, the site is held legally responsible for removing it as soon as possible.

The product here is not your words, the product is a functional discussion board. I can see your argument from intuition, but I don't see that it's strong enough to overturn the pragmatics of running the board for what it is. I hope you don't restrict your posting in apprehension of damaging your later publications - the people need their river, after all

[PavlovianModel146]

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 kind of falls along the lines of what I was talking about. If you put something excellent in Creative Writing, for example, and wanted to Edit it out a year later in hopes of publishing it for profit, I'd Edit it out for you...probably. I might even move the thread to Quarantine and make a post (to Staff) stating the reason why. Obviously, you couldn't abuse that, I mean, by the thirtieth post I'm going to start to question your motives...

[PavlovianModel146]

Pav,
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.

The, "probably," just referred to whether or not I felt someone was abusing the fact that I would go ahead and do that, or, for example, someone could ask a post to be deleted for which they were given a Warning (effectively negating the Warning), so of course I wouldn't do that.

I really see no reason for you not to take me at my word, I don't remember any case, having to do with Moderation, in which I did not do what I said I would do, or did do something that I said I would not do.

I'm admitting that an individual should have creative control for a number of limited purposes, but I obviously concur with all points made by myself and others about not granting unlimited control. Of course, when it comes to Forum Permissions, a person may either have unlimited Edits at any time, or a person may not, so you have to do a cost/benefit analysis on that...which we've done.

[Jayson]

we already agree that my suggestion is an improvement

No we don't.

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.

[PavlovianModel146]

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.

1.) There is no reason to quote every single line of every single post.

2.) Some people don't quote at all, so lacking the previous post, the context is gone.

3.) The very fact that a post can be quoted, in its entirety, destroys your entire argument. You could delete a post of yours, but as you have already pointed out, it wouldn't change the quote, if the post were quoted in its entirety. It also destroys your argument about publishing anything because the Bots read the quotes, and therefore, the quotes are searchable.

If you wanted to publish something that you wrote that had been quoted, in its entirety, and you wanted it gone from the site, then you'd need a Moderator. Either that, or the Member that quoted you would have to be agreeable. That's even if you could delete your own post.

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.

The context of the discussion is ours to preserve because the discussion is a collaborative effort that is made possible by, you guessed it, ILP. While it may be true that the same discussion could have been had in a Chat Room, on a different Board, on the phone, or in any other variety of places, you chose to have it on ILP.

ILP wants to preserve the discussion, in its entirety. Furthermore, if you could just wantonly delete your own posts, then perhaps you would take the context out of a Discussion that the person with whom you were discussing it wanted to preserve. However, they don't have a choice at all if you are able to delete it. They might want to read it again. So, while it may be your (singular) post, the Discussion belongs to all parties involved and ILP facilitates the Discussion.

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.

We're obviously not talking about Editing out the swear words. It seems that the main thrust of the Moderators' side of the argument pertains mainly to all-out post Deletion, irrespective of the presence of swear words. You know better than to erect strawmen...

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.

I did not agree that your suggestion is an improvement. I presented alternatives to your proposal, alternatives, it should be mentioned, that already existed in the first place.

[PavlovianModel146]

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.

Exactly.

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.

It only destroys my argument if you assume that every post is going to be quoted, or, at the very least, that the central idea of every post will be quoted. I'll grant you that it happens very often in practice, but not all of the time.

You can say that if someone quotes you it is a part of their post, but the words are not theirs. If you want to have ownership over your posts, and I'm assuming that you mean the words within the post as opposed to the Internet space your post takes up, then you have no true ownership unless the quotes go.

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.

Sure, you can leave if you don't like the filet, but I'm keeping the wine that you brought over.

I agree that the content belongs to the participants, plural, that's kind of my point.

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.

I'm not going to continue to argue in analogies. I did in the quote above, but that will be the last time.

It's not a strawman. This is what creative control involves.

Creative Control involves not addressing post deletion in favor of addressing taking out swear words...a point that nobody actually brought up?