Monooq wrote: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 wrote: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
Monooq wrote: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.
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?
Pav wrote: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.
Monooq wrote:Pav wrote: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.
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 wrote: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.
Monooq wrote: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.
Monooq wrote:Only_Humean wrote: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?
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...
Monooq wrote: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.
Old_Gobbo wrote: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.'
Only_Humean wrote: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'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.What's right is to allow people to control what's theirs.
All discussion sites were always better in the past. Just ask any long-timers.
The only reason the edit control was brought in is that it was a problem.
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?
anon wrote: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.
Old_Gobbo wrote: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?
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.
pav wrote:The only reason the edit control was brought in is that it was a problem.
old g wrote:And it created a bigger problem, arguably.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users