2001.07.18@*
00:24:35: m_turner: EDEV: with the recent rash of self node nuking (I can think of two just today) - maybe a suicide option would be nice to have. After typing in your login, your password (twice to verify) and an 'are you sure', in ~72 hours (the word galaxy), >>
00:26:03: m_turner: EDEV: the account is removed along with any nodes. Within this 3 day period, you can eaisly undo this action. Futhermore, a email is sent to the address listed and at the top of the epicenter the "You have requested E2 suicide - undo" link (in red).
00:27:27: anotherone: EDEV: that would be quite possibly the worst thing ever to happen to E2. Someone gets a little pissy, ZAP.
00:27:28: m_turner: EDEV: comments? someone willing to formalize it with an edev doc? someone willing to write the code?
00:28:28: m_turner: EDEV: exactly why the 3 day 'cooling off period'. Maybe they need to come back again after the third day and verify it once more rather than *poof*?
00:31:46: sleeping wolf: EDEV: I'd rather have a god power that would axe all writeups. Not only would suicide lend itself to pissiness, what if someone guessed anothers password, changed it, suicided? Would the original owner be able to convince the gods in time?
00:33:33: m_turner: EDEV: the email being sent would be one indication. Futhermore, the person would have to not log in for several days or miss the "deactivate" link at the top of every page.
00:34:22: m_turner: EDEV: (or the person would have to come in on another day several days later and once again verify the login and password with the alternate method)
00:34:38: atesh: EDEV: The email can be changed by someone who finds out a person's password..
00:35:41: m_turner: EDEV: true. Which is something diffrent/intresting to address - when email address is changed, send mail to the original address informing that address of the change?
00:43:25: JerboaKolinowski: EDEV: I don't think email should be *relied* on, People might sign up using temporary addresses, etc.etc. Not everyone *reads* their email, if they do download it. I'd say if available, it should be /permanently/ reversable, too (the wu's, that is)
00:45:56: m_turner: EDEV: reversability has a number of options. A writeup could be marked as 'gone' and just not show up (in node purgatory?) - toggleable of course by the owner of the writeup or a editor.
00:46:27: hodgepodge: EDEV: I think the current opinion of the Establishment is that this would be a Bad Thing... see pulling an Asamoth, I think.
00:47:27: m_turner: EDEV: or a user could be marked as gone, in which case the user search and no nodes would be displayed (though the username would still be 'reserved'). Not sure how much of a dbstrain that would be though. It does answer several problems though.
00:48:25: ailie: EDEV: m_turner, why don't you write up the idea and I'll pass it around to the other gods. I don't think we should nix it up front, but there are a lot of details to consider as well.
00:49:02: m_turner: EDEV: the problem is that people do pull Asamoths. There were two of them today. Kill all content, ask for a nuke of the nodes and account. Its rather unfortunate.
00:50:14: JerboaKolinowski: EDEV: Indeed, I read that, when bongy added a corrective note to it. We seem to have a succession of disappearing philosophers.. E2 is like a library.. eerie parallels to The Name of the Rose...
00:51:33: m_turner: EDEV: (and alot more damage can be done if someone gets anothers password and then pulls an Asamoth on another person's nodes)
00:54:55: JerboaKolinowski: EDEV: I wonder if we just implemented a 'hide' button on the wu's, whether that might appeal more to some of our asamoth-pullers - if it's less work, and they have a lot of wu's...?
00:56:58: JerboaKolinowski: EDEV: Oops, hadn't read the 'user gone' idea properly - that's much better, and has any advantages my previous /msg did.
00:57:22: m_turner: EDEV: JK - or even a 'hide all and me too'... but call it 'suicide' (you don't have to /tell/ them theres a backup)
00:58:05: waterhouse: EDEV: if i ever decided to do something like that, i wouldn't want all of my nodes nuked, that's just mean to everyone. but i would wanna get rid of a few personal or sentimental ones, so i like the idea of a way to voluntarily send a write up to a >>
00:58:32: waterhouse: EDEV: node purgatory or something.
01:01:05: m_turner: EDEV: (just a comment - it costs 1 xp to 'hide' a node to avoid the ('create junk' + 'hide junk') * 10,000 to get 10,000 xp for the creation of the nodes. But yes, a hide node would be quite nice - and could actualy be used as a per node scratchpad?)
01:09:17: JayBonci: EDEV: The only problem I see here with node suicide is that of copyright. People allow E2 to publish certain items (what we contribute). Let's say Demeter (a really great writer), revokes her copyright, and commits node suicide...
01:10:27: JayBonci: EDEV: They revoke their copyright, and we cant publish it anymore. We don't want to get into legal struggles with really good noders, who simply want to take their work elsewhere. Thoughts? This is going to be a problem as E2 gets larger, IMO.
01:11:45: m_turner: EDEV: you mean E2 FAQ: Who "Owns" What In E2? (amusing wordage)
01:11:51: hodgepodge: EDEV: we could put something in the terms and conditions (do we even have terms or conditions) stating that we have the right to keep anything you submit in the database...
01:13:52: m_turner: EDEV: its a problem (hidden node or not). Even the existance of node heaven causes headaches in that realm. (even if it wasn't there, the ability for it to be there was there and the headaches still exist)
01:14:06: JerboaKolinowski: EDEV: JB, nobody's suggesting we publish anything without consent, are they? I don't see how node-suicide relates - it is the withdrawing of consent. By allowing a 'hide' option, we'd make it easier to re-consent.
01:17:31: JerboaKolinowski: EDEV: I don't see how 'hiding' is any different from keeping backups. The critical thing is whether it's public or not, no? (apologies to m_turner for doubled /msg)
01:20:01: JayBonci: EDEV: JK: Backups are in case of emergency; the system fails or what not. We would restore the backup, and then remove their content again. In the case of simply putting it on the bench (hiding it from all the users), it could be a legal fine line.
01:22:17: JayBonci: EDEV: My apologies for dragging this from a feature debate into a legal debate, but I don't want E2 to get screwed in any way, or to see any problems in the future. Having a user remove consent should be final...
01:23:16: JayBonci: EDEV: If we want to lock everything down for a few days, and if they don't look back, what's done is done. You can't say "I want this animal destroyed" and then three months from now come back and say "I really miss pookie". ...
01:23:42: m_turner: EDEV: legalies asside - what is this other than a user managed nuking / restore system? How is a gone node diffrent from a nuked one? There is no practical diffrence beyond how much editor intervetion is required.
01:24:56: JayBonci: EDEV: When content is gone, it's done. Their node heaven should be wiped, message box gone, etc. What about people who added to their nodes, or filled in nodeshells they created? They may be able to sue to say...
01:25:56: JayBonci: EDEV: They didn't remove the copyrighted material when asked. They are guilty of infringement of my original works. *shrug* I may be wrong, and i hope I am.
01:26:57: m_turner: EDEV: I hope no one ever asks to remove the copyrighted information from backups.
01:29:07: JerboaKolinowski: EDEV: Well, if I have copied your beautiful poem and hidden it in my drawer, you can stop me from publishing it, but I think you'd have problems getting my /private/ copy destroyed, wouldn't you?
01:30:53: JerboaKolinowski: EDEV: and in the present case, you wrote out your poem and gave it to me, personally!
01:34:43: JayBonci: ONO: EDEV: JK: Right, you are giving a third party the right to reproduce your works. If you stop, and they keep doing it, that's a problem. Now is the potential to publish a problem. Im not 100% sure. It could go either way.
01:39:46: JerboaKolinowski: EDEV: JB: it's whether you *do* publish it, that's critical, I would have thought. You can 'potentially publish' anything you've committed to memory - there's no legislation against *that*!
03:00:09: clampe: EDEV: Sorrry for corss posting e2gods. I vote no on an auto-suicide function. Our "society" here is served by the pain of deleting these items, pain for both the user and us.
03:32:11: Byzantine: EDEV: I also suggest against a suicide function. E2 is more like graffiti on an overpass than an anthology
06:43:57: Pyrogenic: EDEV: Re: copyright jazz: E2's terms should say that submitting work to e2 grants e2 a perpetual irrevocable right to store and distribute that work via e2. Sort of like a photo contest, but the user doesn't have to give up any other rights. >>
06:44:12: Pyrogenic: EDEV: >> If a user later wishes to remove hir work, E2 reserves the right to retain WUs (including restoring from backup) at E2s discretion. In such a case, E2 could anonymize those writups.
06:47:20: atesh: EDEV: Except that's not true. YOU own your wus.
06:58:16: Pyrogenic: EDEV: Do we node for the ages, or is E2 a glorified weblog? Isn't that basically what this issue is?
07:02:19: JerboaKolinowski: EDEV: I think it's about nurturing a friendly, equitable relation between noder and database, and yes, maximising content and giving people a break, if they need it
07:30:58: N-Wing: EDEV: approved html tags is just a setting linked to in the Vitals nodelet that just lets admins edit the tags you see on Everything FAQ: Can I use HTML in my writeups?. Another example of a settings page is the list of name /msg aliases.
09:19:43: Gritchka: EDEV: Copyright is unequivocally vested in writers, not E2. No writer here has ever consented to transfer any of their reproduction rights to E2. You can't change the conditions.
13:11:30: donfreenut: EDEV: two things: a) for the record, "pulling an Asamoth" refers to removing the text from all of one's writeups, not requesting they be nuked. b) Could we try to move long discussions to edevdocs or something? Maybe an edev room? Too many /msgs.
15:52:25: IainB: EDEV: quick thought... is there any way of other e2ish sites to pick up each others cookies, so we don't have to login to animefu, e2, perlmonks, edev etc seperately? i know there's a security issue, but is it possible in theory?
16:31:27: JayBonci: EDEV: IainB: Sure, if you have cookies report back to multiple domains, or one common domain that hosts a universal authentication DB. Kinda like Microsoft Passport.. that's how they do it.
16:34:06: mblase: EDEV: Why is it I can edevify a writeup, but not a whole node?
17:16:19: edevBot: EDEV: mblase: I think the other "newsify"-esque functions work the same way, like contentify and the like right?
17:20:18: JayBonci: EDEV: That will teach me to keep two windows open. Was logged out as JayBonci turns out. Sorry about that.
17:27:50: kaatunut: EDEV: that old suggestion about adding "vote count" beside rep... I've seen it suggested many times but no comments about it. is it unfeasible, bad idea or what?
17:30:12: kaatunut: EDEV: looking at Experience.pm, it'd seem it was just $$NODE{count}++ to castvote or like, right?
18:04:36: JayBonci: EDEV: Does anyone know if there was anything wrong with the message system a few days ago? Yes? No? I have a few messages that are breaking the XML tickers and the message inbox, and I'm curious to know if people have seen this, or anything weird...
19:17:39: Gritchka: ONO: EDEV: Someone just mentioned not knowing when they received golden trinkets. Is this Eddie-able? Any way of people seeing this when it happens? Does it _mean_ anything?
21:35:13: yerricde: EDEV: re total votes: I don't think it's a bad idea, as it could be used to determine how controversial a writeup is. Slashdot and Kuro5hin have something similar. Wouldn't viewing other users' writeups' vote counts be a good level 3 power?
21:35:53: yerricde: EDEV: ... although a more "correct" way to do it would probably be to do an SQL count on the vote table.
21:47:59: m_turner: EDEV: 'other users writeups vote counts' as opposed to 'your own writeup vote count'?
22:01:01: yerricde: EDEV: You would always get to see vote count on your own writeups. Seeing vote count on other users' writeups wouldn't come until a higher level, AFTER the user first gets votes.
previous day | next day
full month | entire archive