creative control

[von Rivers]

Either you'll make every change I want, when I want---in which case, you should just let me do it. Or you won't---in which case, you're holding my words hostage and I don't have creative control. The arguments for giving me creative control have been made, as well as the responses to objections.

[PavlovianModel146]

Either you'll make every change I want, when I want---in which case, you should just let me do it. Or you won't---in which case, you're holding my words hostage and I don't have creative control. The arguments for giving me creative control have been made, as well as the responses to objections.

In that case, I'm holding your words hostage.

Your request has been completed. The word, "Fucked," has been changed to, "Screwed," on a few occasions to maintain context. The only occasions where the word, "Fuck," or any variation thereof is contained within one of your posts is in the words of someone you have quoted. While I will not change the quote (or anyone else's words), you have the option of my deleting those quotes entirely from your post.

Let me know, I have your PM from the earlier request, so letting me know in this thread is fine.

[von Rivers]

I know; that's the current policy. I'm suggesting you change it. I've made a number of arguments, which ones did you not like.


Imagine that you have a really great post on ILP. ILP then turns and publishes it on it's own and earns one million dollars (--for the sake of the thought experiment). ILP cited you in the book, so technically it's not plagiarism. And the content was on their website, so they have a legal right to (let's suppose). Carleas is now out buying a car, thinking about what a sucker you are--or maybe not, but at least buying a car. You, Pav, get nothing. You get to go to work on Monday. Anything feel somehow wrong about this scenario? If it does, it's probably because you realize that content was somehow yours. If that's so, then there's also something wrong about holding your content against your desire to edit it, add to it, or delete it. In the absence of great harm, ILP would be improved if it gave you creative control.

I made the content public. I knowingly submitted the content to ILP knowing that ILP would become the owner of the content. Any arguments against me knowing that ILP would become the owner of the content have been negated completely by this thread.

Furthermore:
1. I did not want "fuck" changed to "screwed" in any place. Either delete the word, or put "----".
2. I have not made a decision about other swear words, yet. I will let you know if/when I do.
3. The purpose of this is not to make you busy, as if you had no life. I want control over my words. What you're offering is not control. This is silly, and I guarantee that the other moderators dont' want to be doing this.... But if you're in the process of doing this, then
4. Delete this thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=142393. It's from May, 2004. There was never anything in it.
5. Delete my rap post in the Plato rap thread (creative writing)---http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=142393. I plan on using it.

But you understand how this misses the point, right?

[PavlovianModel146]

I know; that's the current policy. I'm suggesting you change it. I've made a number of arguments, which ones did you not like

Asked and answered.

Imagine that you have a really great post on ILP. ILP then turns and publishes it on it's own and earns one million dollars (--for the sake of the thought experiment). ILP cited you in the book, so technically it's not plagiarism. And the content was on their website, so they have a legal right to (let's suppose). Carleas is now out buying a car, thinking about what a sucker you are--or maybe not, but at least buying a car. You, Pav, get nothing. You get to go to work on Monday. Anything feel somehow wrong about this scenario? If it does, it's probably because you realize that content was somehow yours. If that's so, then there's also something wrong about holding your content against your desire to edit it, add to it, or delete it. In the absence of great harm, ILP would be improved if it gave you creative control.

I made the content public. I knowingly submitted the content to ILP knowing that ILP would become the owner of the content. Any arguments against me knowing that ILP would become the owner of the content have been negated completely by this thread.

Furthermore:
1. I did not want "fuck" changed to "screwed" in any place. Either delete the word, or put "----".

Very well.

2. I have not made a decision about other swear words, yet. I will let you know if/when I do.

Very well.

3. The purpose of this is not to make you busy, as if you had no life. I want control over my words. What you're offering is not control. This is silly, and I guarantee that the other moderators dont' want to be doing this.... But if you're in the process of doing this, then

Asked and answered.

4. Delete this thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=142393. It's from May, 2004. There was never anything in it.

I will view and consider.

5. Delete my rap post in the Plato rap thread (creative writing)---http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=142393. I plan on using it.

Very well.

But you understand how this misses the point, right?

Asked and answered.

[PavlovianModel146]

Request 4 is completed. Request 5 links me to the same thread as Request 4, please correct your link in a new post.

[PavlovianModel146]

Request Number 1 is complete.

-The exceptions are your post in this thread, and two other posts in which the word, "Screw," or a variation thereof appears that I did not edit in the first place.

Request Number 2 is pending, I await your instructions.

Request Number 3 is not an actual request.

Request Number four is complete.

Request Number 5 is incorrect. I will require a different link.

What a tremendous service provided by ILP! Just look at the time I have saved you!

[von Rivers]

I made the content public. I knowingly submitted the content to ILP knowing that ILP would become the owner of the content. Any arguments against me knowing that ILP would become the owner of the content have been negated completely by this thread.

Pav,

You keep restating what the policy is. I'm suggesting that it be changed. To restate the policy as a reason why it shouldn't be changed, is not a good reason. The thought experiment should give you a sense of what I mean by saying that ILP, whether or not it owns the content legally, doesn't really own it.

[PavlovianModel146]

I made the content public. I knowingly submitted the content to ILP knowing that ILP would become the owner of the content. Any arguments against me knowing that ILP would become the owner of the content have been negated completely by this thread.

Pav,

You keep restating what the policy is. I'm suggesting that it be changed. To restate the policy as a reason why it shouldn't be changed, is not a good reason. The thought experiment should give you a sense of what I mean by saying that ILP, whether or not it owns the content legally, doesn't really own it.

That's not the policy, that's the legality. Your ability to Edit or Delete your posts in an unlimited way would do nothing to change ILP's ownership of the posts. ILP would still own the posts at such time as they were on the Forum. Furthermore, ILP could, theoretically, Lock a post from being Edited were ILP determined to keep the post, even if you otherwise would have the ability to Edit/Delete it.

ILP's ownership of the posts is beyond question. The question is what ILP chooses to do or not do with the posts.

Please provide me with a new link so I can complete Request Number 5.

[von Rivers]

That's not the policy, that's the legality. Your ability to Edit or Delete your posts in an unlimited way would do nothing to change ILP's ownership of the posts. ILP would still own the posts at such time as they were on the Forum. Furthermore, ILP could, theoretically, Lock a post from being Edited were ILP determined to keep the post, even if you otherwise would have the ability to Edit/Delete it.

ILP's ownership of the posts is beyond question. The question is what ILP chooses to do or not do with the posts.

I haven't been making a legal case. I'm not a lawyer. I'm a philosopher. This entire time I've been making something like a moral case.

[Jayson]

So you don't know what you are asking for legally, but you would like the legal policy to change to suit your moral request?

[PavlovianModel146]

I haven't been making a legal case. I'm not a lawyer. I'm a philosopher. This entire time I've been making something like a moral case.

That's cool. As a Philosopher, you must know that sometimes Morals and the Law will conflict, and for you, this may be one of those times. In this case, I have no moral problem with this law, nor does it seem any other Member of Staff has such a problem. Admittedly, you have received limited support in your endeavor, recently, but general membership still seems to outnumber you.

If you're looking to determine what is site policy, then Help & Suggestions is the right place. You Suggested a change to Site policy, Help & Suggestions was the proper venue for that. If you want to Debate Law v. Morality in this context, this may be a thread and line of discussion better suited for Social Sciences.

You can make a moral case for legalizing cold-blooded murder in limited circumstances, that will not change the law.

In order to complete your Fifth Request, I will require a correct link.

[Only_Humean]

Monooq - it's simply not implausible that threads get wrecked. That's the reason the controls were brought in.

Is there something about my reasoning, or my explanation of the thread where all my posts are deleted, that doesn't convince you?

Yes. Your reasoning is that thread vandalism's not a problem. The only reason the edit control was brought in is that it was a problem. "Not a problem to Monooq" is not a persuasive argument. But it's one you seem inclined to repeat ad nauseam.

You've just been declaring that as if it was obvious. Not only is it not obvious, it's false. We don't have to talk to each other as if the last man just to simply restate their opinion wins---we actually have the same evidence to go by...

Indeed we do. The same evidence does not require we draw the same conclusions, clearly.

You might be disinclined to do that if the site has the attitude that it has a legal and moral right to own and use whatever you write. And that after 48 hours, you can pretty much kiss it goodbye. It's an easy fix, though. --Creative control.

The legality issue is not an "attitude", it is simply how the law stands.

The moral issue, as has been made clear, is that mods will generally edit/delete old posts if the request is reasonable. In any case, if you wish to reprint things later, you may do so. You have the right to own and use whatever you have written; ILP's not going to sue you for plagiarism, as you can be identified by your username.

I don't think there's any more to say.

[Only_Humean]

It's just a shame, as there is nothing good going on around here, and there used to be. You can accuse me of 'living in the past' or whatever, but let's not kid ourselves. The site sucks now. I only come here when I think 'Hmm, how about I write a bunch of stuff on a site that gives me no motivation to do so.'

All discussion sites were always better in the past. Just ask any long-timers. It's how things are. Would reverting the edit functionality really change anything?

It's a shame you're unmotivated to post here. If you've found somewhere better, why are you here and not there?

[von Rivers]

Yes. Your reasoning is that thread vandalism's not a problem. The only reason the edit control was brought in is that it was a problem. "Not a problem to Monooq" is not a persuasive argument. But it's one you seem inclined to repeat ad nauseam.

I gave you an argument---I quoted it in my last reply to you. I put it in the reply, because I have a feeling you've stopped even reading my posts, and just skim through to look for an excuse to repeat what you always do, "terrrrrrriblleee connnnsequencesssss ooooooooh"! (~Imagine thunder and lightening~). I explained how the consequences aren't terrible---they aren't even bad. Everything that is valuable is preserved. A post that is valuable stands on its own. Read it, or don't bother replying.

Pav,

Yes, in this particular case, it would be better if the policy mapped what's right. What's right is to allow people to control what's theirs. You can say it's not theirs in a legal sense---but that's not what is at issue. If you think a person's post is "not theirs" in something like a moral sense, then try the thought experiment I gave you, and if you pass it, then make that argument. Although, be very careful about making that argument---it could go very wrongly for you.

[anon]

It's amazing how patient, polite, and thoughtful the moderators and Carleas are. It's what I aspire to. But I personally couldn't put up with this kind of thing for long, if at all. Monooq, you're a smart guy. Put some more of this kind of energy into some substantial philosophical discussion and we're all set.

[tentative]

Monooq,

What's right is to allow people to control what's theirs.

I'm not sure that repeating the same thing over and over as some sort of mantra is really helping you. You have repeatedly ignored the obvious: Once what used to be yours in privacy, becomes OURS once it enters any public domain. You can talk legality or morality all you like, and it doesn't change a damned thing. This is true not only in ILP but in any form of public communication known. Sure, all the CYA legal steps must be observed to protect delicate "intellectual property rights", but once public, no one, including you, "owns" whatever has been put on public display. Once information of any kind enters the public sphere, it becomes public ownwership.

Is this morally right or wrong? It is neither. It is simply the pragmatic way of the world.

[Gobbo]

All discussion sites were always better in the past. Just ask any long-timers.

I prefaced this, only to have you say the exact thing I said you would say. Can't say I'm surprised, obviously.

The only reason the edit control was brought in is that it was a problem.

And it created a bigger problem, arguably.

Would reverting the edit functionality really change anything?

Give it a shot. See how it goes. Why not just take away the privileges from people who abuse them, instead of using blanket solutions?

Cause, as I said, the main goal of this site is order and control. It's ostensible, and has been for a while. For as long as I can remember Ben/Carleas has valued order over quality of posts. While I agree with Monooq here, I'm not of the type to think that any of the moderators here prefer quality over order, and hence will give a flying fuck about this request.

It's a shame you're unmotivated to post here. If you've found somewhere better, why are you here and not there?

There are some very analytical people here. Sort of like logical savants who are completely delusional when it comes to the real world, but good for a read. But I mean I do like philosophy. I have a degree in philosophy, if you can believe that. It's not like forums are mutually exclusive. I can be here and somewhere else at the same time.

[PavlovianModel146]

It's amazing how patient, polite, and thoughtful the moderators and Carleas are. It's what I aspire to. But I personally couldn't put up with this kind of thing for long, if at all. Monooq, you're a smart guy. Put some more of this kind of energy into some substantial philosophical discussion and we're all set.

Thanks, Anon, I imagine that you could 'put up' with it just fine. I remember that we've had a discussion or two where I really just wasn't getting it, but what I did find is that your patience and politeness both rivals and surpasses my own.

[PavlovianModel146]

Give it a shot. See how it goes. Why not just take away the privileges from people who abuse them, instead of using blanket solutions?

If the purpose is straight post deletion, then the damage is thoroughly done before anyone notices and taking the privileges away from a person who has already deleted all of their posts accomplishes nothing.

[PavlovianModel146]

Pav,

Yes, in this particular case, it would be better if the policy mapped what's right. What's right is to allow people to control what's theirs. You can say it's not theirs in a legal sense---but that's not what is at issue. If you think a person's post is "not theirs" in something like a moral sense, then try the thought experiment I gave you, and if you pass it, then make that argument. Although, be very careful about making that argument---it could go very wrongly for you.

Can you quote it (thought experiment) for me? This thing has gone five pages, I'm not about to read all of them again.

I will require a correct link to complete your Fifth Request.

[Jayson]

The only reason the edit control was brought in is that it was a problem.

And it created a bigger problem, arguably.

What problem? The problem Monooq is raising?
If so, that's not a site quality and functionality problem; that's a complaint and request for an alleged improvement morally; not functionally.

[PavlovianModel146]

Only_Humean said your top quote.

[Faust]

Welcome to ILP Hell.

[Jayson]

No god dammit, it's my creative control and I say Pav wrote it so Pav wrote it!

[PavlovianModel146]

LOL