|
locked
Re: Updates to Trello
Nightowl >8#
YAY!
Thanks for taking this seriously, we had another instance of it today, which would have been easier if the views would switch and stay in place.
Brenda
|
|
|
locked
Re: Received: header lines
Nightowl >8#
Thank you!
View source has always been a standard that I understand.
I was actually afraid to click on View Original, because I didn't know what it would do until John told me!
Brenda
|
|
|
locked
Re: Code of conduct
Nightowl >8#
vickie wrote:>>You can't use this as an example.Twitter has shut down many accounts for the example you just submitted.If there is intent to engage people in the act of harming someone or inject the act of terrorism because of religious theology it is against the law.<<
Okay, now I think I have figured out what Mark wants. Let's see if I can explain it or not.
Mark could put the non-negotiable things in the TOS, such as racism, threats and other dangerous things, and the things he would do if X or Y happens, "If you are caught bullying another member, you will be blocked or banned from the groups.io service" in the Code Of Conduct.
I agree that maybe the rest of the Code Of Conduct could be used as a basic guide. "We prefer that our groups exercise civility at all times, even when you disagree."
Vickie wrote:>>with that said Mark has a right to keep a tight reign and eyes on this sort of thing. If Mark creates his own code of conduct for his website, the courts do not get involved with that and his terms of service covers everything else..<<
Okay. Mark wants to tout his service as safe, as decent, as a place where people can come and not be attacked or harmed. A place where if that happens, they will be protected. So....
It becomes a matter of wording. I'll try and write an example of what I'm saying.
"groups.io will not tolerate harassment, racism or intent to harm against any member. The member will have recourse to take the issue to the management and it will be handled."
The idea is this. As I said earlier, someone made a hate group on Yahoo against me, and what I didn't say at the time, was that they listed my REAL NAME in the title.
That was an infringement of my privacy, and bordered on dangerous. When people start providing personal contact info or other info on a member to the public, that's dangerous.
Knowing that if that were to happen here, that I have recourse to stop it by contacting Mark or his management, (down the line), makes me feel safe.
If the user perceives that it's a safe place, where they can freely communicate with people and are safe from digital attacks and harm, that concept of groups.io being that safe place where bullying and harassment won't be tolerated would become its reputation.
BBS and Internet groups have had issues ever since they have existed. Most can be handled by the moderators or owners. But, when they can't be, the members need another recourse. They need to be able to appeal to a higher person, i.e. the groups.io management.
Yahoo ultimately, FINALLY, deleted the group that exposed my actual name, and other things the person was putting in it. But it was very hard to achieve. I want to know that action would be taken more swiftly in the groups.io platform.
Other people have posted personal information about me and my family and life that was not for public view, and that is another example of when the moderator may not be enough, particularly when the moderator is the culprit.
Those things need to be able to be stopped, and leaving the group or blocking the person, does NOT prevent that personal information being put out there.
I think the biggest problem here is that those who feel we don't need a Code of Conduct are perceiving it as hard and fast rules about what we can talk about.
It's not about what we can or can't talk about. It's about how we CONDUCT ourselves. And it's about what protections people have when they become a member of the groups.io community platform.
I'm going to try and adapt one or more of the examples that he pointed us to, and see if I can show you all what I mean.
And Mark, if I'm wrong about the points I'm making here, feel free to let me know.
Brenda
P.S. Vickie wrote:>>Which by the way. I would like to know how many of you have read Marks terms of service in full. You all should know it by heart while registered in his website.<<
I read it once all the way through, but was waiting to read it again until I'm sure it's finished.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Peace! Vickie
From: Mark Bielecki via Groups.io <msb05001=yahoo.com@groups.io>
To: beta@groups.io
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 10:28 AM
Subject: [beta] Re: Code of conduct #CoC
Hi Mark,It seems to me that every group on Groups.io already has the perfect
Code of Conduct enforcement method in place: if a member has an issue with
something that has been posted, regardless of how popular or unpopular your
viewpoint on that issue is, that member can ... leave the group. Anybody
who is offended by anything at all merely has to leave the group and will no
longer be offended by anything posted in that group. Really quite simple,
and in its own way it's really quite elegant as well.If a group's conduct
becomes unacceptable to enough people there will no longer be a group;
problem solved, all by itself. It's hard to be racist, sexist, or anything
else-ist to others if there's nobody else there to listen!If the group's
conduct is acceptable to some or many people then those people will continue
together as a group of like-minded individuals, whether here on Groups.io or
elsewhere. The question that immediately comes to mind when I hear code of
conduct and private groups (and these are private groups, even if they are
open to the pubic, unless they're supported by government money) is: who is
appointed the Official & Final Arbiter of Conduct? And who decides who
appoints this ultimate authoritarian? And who decides who gets to decide who
appoints him or her, ad nauseum.Different people have different levels of
tolerance, and depending upon the setting, circumstances, relationship of the
individuals or group, etc., what may be nothing at all to one group of people
may be utter blasphemy or outrageous behavior to others. As some have
already mentioned, Yahoo! bans certain words that can be considered vulgar or
profane in some circumstances and are purely mainstream and acceptable in
others: bitch and ass come to mind (anyone who can't figure out the problems
here then one shouldn't even be part of this discussion!). I previously
wrote about my offering to sell "Al's balls" on one of my groups, and the
problems that it caused because somebody either didn't understand the context,
the subject, or simply wanted to cause problems for that group with Yahoo!.
Religion and politics and even science groups are ripe for and rife with
potential issues; the Christian west, as an example, has concepts of free
speech which include the assumed right to commentary and satire -- verbal,
written, and visual -- while some religious groups, such as far right ultra
orthodox Islam (my description) has real problems with those things when they
are applied to Allah and Islam, resulting in the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini
of Iran issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Salman Rushdie for writing and
publishing his book "The Satanic Verses" and twelve people being killed at the
offices of Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical magazine that published
controversial Muhammad cartoons after Muslim clerics declared them to be
blasphemous.Out of curiosity, Mark, if Ayatollah Ruhollah started a Groups.io
group to discuss Muslim theology and blasphemy, who would be the arbiter of
the code of conduct on their discussions if a conservative Christian
complained? Would that arbiter of conduct have any moral authority to censor
or ban one of the highest clerics of Islam theology? That person would be
damned if he did, and damned if he didn't!What if a Groups.io group is started
to discuss "The Satanic Verses" and somebody complains that it's blasphemous
to the Groups.io Conduct Authority? What if Salman Rushdie himself starts
the group, or joins in the conversation or debate? Similar issues as
above.What if a group of religious or free speech academics or even just plain
old people started a group to discuss the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the
underlying issues, re-posted those cartoons on their Groups.io group, and a
conservative Muslim complained? Would that arbiter of conduct have any moral
authority to censor or ban the free expression and discussion (including the
posting of blasphemous or non-blasphemous cartoons, depending upon one's
point-of-view) by religious or first amendment scholars -- or people merely
interested in discussing / debating the issues? Again, the arbiter of
conduct would be damned if he did, and damned if he didn't!Take the example
above even one step further: What if Groups.io doesn't censor or ban the
Charlie Hebdo group, and a bunch of conservative Christians, freedom of speech
advocates, and conservative Muslims all join the group and start an intense
debate on the matter. Somebody complains to Groups.io about a code of
conduct violation -- who at Groups.io has the authority and depth of insight
and knowledge to decide what's OK, what's not, who's in the right, who's not?
I know I wouldn't be as I'm neither a religious authority or a free speech
scholar, and I'm guessing Groups.io has neither on staff. Even if your staff
had one, obviously there's some pretty deeply held religious beliefs being
discussed here and the blasphemy issue will never be answered on a Groups.io
group or by a Groups.io Code of COnduct arbiter or censor, though there is
obvious value to there being a venue to have the debate. What will you do:
ban ALL discussion of a religious nature, or to be safe ban ANY discussion
that will generate controversy and code of conduct complaints?The obvious
answer is to leave the moderators in charge of their own groups' conduct, and
let the members vote with their feet: stay if it's OK, leave if it isn't.
Simple and elegant, with the added benefit of keeping extremists from
issuing fatwas on staff members of Groups.io! <--tongue in cheek humor, in
case that wasn't clear!The whole Code of Conduct idea is a bad idea from the
start if it's going to be imposed on the groups by Groups.io itself. Let the
group owners/moderators determine their groups' culture and mores and conduct,
and let the members signal their approval or disapproval by subscribing or
unsubscribing.Mark, if you are truly concerned about Groups.io getting some
sort of "bad" reputation like some other communications platforms, might I
suggest that to address your concerns without embroiling yourself and your
staff in code of conduct issues and problems that you simply retain the
authority to require groups which leave you uncomfortable or concerned to
switch over to being private groups instead of public groups? Problem solved
with public image issues for Groups.io; anybody who joins a private group at
that point has gone looking for whatever they found, especially if you allow a
label such as "restricted" or "adult" or some other similar rating or label
that notifies the potential subscriber that there may be some concerns for the
faint hearted amongst us.Best,Mark Bielecki
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 03:08 pm, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
Hi All,
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Anita C. <pocketcollie@gmail.com> wrote:
Just out of curiosity, could you share the general nature of the complaints
without giving away the specific list?
Recently, complaints about bullying by group owners. But my thought about
creating a CoC is more about the future than right now, and shaping the
general reputation of Groups.io groups as 'safe' places on the Internet.
Here's what I want to avoid. Reddit has a horrible reputation, for hosting
racist and sexist groups, for trolls, for a lot of nastiness. I don't want any
part of that. While not a direct corollary to Groups.io, Twitter also has a
problem with a lot of harassment. Many people don't feel safe using those
services. In the real world, many science fiction conventions (amongst others)
have realized that they need a code of conduct because bad behavior was
happening (mainly sexual harassment, I believe).
It seems to me that there are some general things that would apply to all
groups: no harassment, no racism, etc. By establishing a CoC, my hope would be
that it would head off some of this behavior. I would hope that all Groups.io
moderators would want Groups.io to have a good reputation. It would only help
you.
Does this make what I'm trying to get at more clear? Thoughts appreciated.
Thanks,Mark
|
|
|
Maybe it could be: view/reply to this message (browser link) reply to group (email) reply to sender (email) mute this thread group home or back to topics
And reply to group or reply to sender could be listed in order of what the group default preference is. Maria
|
|
|
locked
Re: Code of conduct
I've found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with Mark B. on this issue. To me the
most important part of the example quoted (viewed as applying to all groups,
not a specific group) is this short paragraph:
"These are not hard and fast rules, merely aids to the human judgment of our
community. Use these guidelines to keep this a clean, well-lighted place for
civilized public discourse."
In other words, it is NOT mandatory. The rest of it is very much what I would
expect to see as a recommended guideline for group owners to use in making
codes of conduct for a specific group.
Incidentally, one part of those guidelines specifically compares the system to
a public park, and asks for similar behaviour. That comparison would hold true
in Groups.io for public groups, but not for private groups, which are more like
a private house or garden.
Jim Fisher
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On 12 Feb 2016 at 10:48, Mark Fletcher wrote: Mark,
It would be helpful if you could review http://try.discourse.org/faq and
specify which parts you object to and why.
Thanks,
Mark
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Mark Bielecki via Groups.io <
msb05001=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Hi Mark,
It seems to me that every group on Groups.io already has the perfect Code of
Conduct enforcement method in place: if a member has an issue with something
that has been posted, regardless of how popular or unpopular your viewpoint on
that issue is, that member can ... leave the group. Anybody who is offended
by anything at all merely has to leave the group and will no longer be
offended by anything posted in that group. Really quite simple, and in its
own way it's really quite elegant as well.
If a group's conduct becomes unacceptable to enough people there will no
longer be a group; problem solved, all by itself. It's hard to be racist,
sexist, or anything else-ist to others if there's nobody else there to listen!
If the group's conduct is acceptable to some or many people then those
people will continue together as a group of like-minded individuals,
whether here on Groups.io or elsewhere. The question that immediately
comes to mind when I hear code of conduct and private groups (and these are
private groups, even if they are open to the pubic, unless they're supported
by government money) is: who is appointed the Official & Final Arbiter of
Conduct? And who decides who appoints this ultimate authoritarian? And who
decides who gets to decide who appoints him or her, ad nauseum.
Different people have different levels of tolerance, and depending upon
the setting, circumstances, relationship of the individuals or group, etc.,
what may be nothing at all to one group of people may be utter blasphemy or
outrageous behavior to others. As some have already mentioned, Yahoo! bans
certain words that can be considered vulgar or profane in some circumstances
and are purely mainstream and acceptable in others: bitch and ass come to
mind (anyone who can't figure out the problems here then one shouldn't even be
part of this discussion!). I previously wrote about my offering to sell "Al's
balls" on one of my groups, and the problems that it caused because somebody
either didn't understand the context, the subject, or simply wanted to cause
problems for that group with Yahoo!. Religion and politics and even science
groups are ripe for and rife with potential issues; the Christian west, as an
example, has concepts of free speech which include the assumed right to
commentary and satire -- verbal, written, and visual -- while some religious
groups, such as far right ultra orthodox Islam (my description) has real
problems with those things when they are applied to Allah and Islam, resulting
in the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to
kill Salman Rushdie for writing and publishing his book "The Satanic Verses"
and twelve people being killed at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a French
satirical magazine that published controversial Muhammad cartoons after Muslim
clerics declared them to be blasphemous.
Out of curiosity, Mark, if Ayatollah Ruhollah started a Groups.io group to
discuss Muslim theology and blasphemy, who would be the arbiter of the code of
conduct on their discussions if a conservative Christian complained? Would
that arbiter of conduct have any moral authority to censor or ban one of the
highest clerics of Islam theology? That person would be damned if he did, and
damned if he didn't!
What if a Groups.io group is started to discuss "The Satanic Verses" and
somebody complains that it's blasphemous to the Groups.io Conduct
Authority? What if Salman Rushdie himself starts the group, or joins in
the conversation or debate? Similar issues as above.
What if a group of religious or free speech academics or even just plain
old people started a group to discuss the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the
underlying issues, re-posted those cartoons on their Groups.io group, and a
conservative Muslim complained? Would that arbiter of conduct have any moral
authority to censor or ban the free expression and discussion (including the
posting of blasphemous or non-blasphemous cartoons, depending upon one's
point-of-view) by religious or first amendment scholars -- or people merely
interested in discussing / debating the issues? Again, the arbiter of conduct
would be damned if he did, and damned if he didn't!
Take the example above even one step further: What if Groups.io doesn't
censor or ban the Charlie Hebdo group, and a bunch of conservative
Christians, freedom of speech advocates, and conservative Muslims all join the
group and start an intense debate on the matter. Somebody complains to
Groups.io about a code of conduct violation -- who at Groups.io has the
authority and depth of insight and knowledge to decide what's OK, what's not,
who's in the right, who's not? I know I wouldn't be as I'm neither a
religious authority or a free speech scholar, and I'm guessing Groups.io has
neither on staff. Even if your staff had one, obviously there's some pretty
deeply held religious beliefs being discussed here and the blasphemy issue
will never be answered on a Groups.io group or by a Groups.io Code of COnduct
arbiter or censor, though there is obvious value to there being a venue to
have the debate. What will you do: ban ALL discussion of a religious nature,
or to be safe ban ANY discussion that will generate controversy and code of
conduct complaints?
The obvious answer is to leave the moderators in charge of their own
groups' conduct, and let the members vote with their feet: stay if it's
OK, leave if it isn't. Simple and elegant, with the added benefit of
keeping extremists from issuing fatwas on staff members of Groups.io!
<--tongue in cheek humor, in case that wasn't clear!
The whole Code of Conduct idea is a bad idea from the start if it's going to
be imposed on the groups by Groups.io itself. Let the group owners/moderators
determine their groups' culture and mores and conduct, and let the members
signal their approval or disapproval by subscribing or unsubscribing.
Mark, if you are truly concerned about Groups.io getting some sort of
"bad" reputation like some other communications platforms, might I suggest
that to address your concerns without embroiling yourself and your staff in
code of conduct issues and problems that you simply retain the authority to
require groups which leave you uncomfortable or concerned to switch over to
being private groups instead of public groups? Problem solved with public
image issues for Groups.io; anybody who joins a private group at that point
has gone looking for whatever they found, especially if you allow a label such
as "restricted" or "adult" or some other similar rating or label that notifies
the potential subscriber that there may be some concerns for the faint hearted
amongst us.
Best,
Mark Bielecki
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 03:08 pm, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io>
wrote:
Hi All,
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Anita C. <pocketcollie@gmail.com> wrote:
Just out of curiosity, could you share the general nature of the
complaints without giving away the specific list?
Recently, complaints about bullying by group owners. But my thought about
creating a CoC is more about the future than right now, and shaping the
general reputation of Groups.io groups as 'safe' places on the Internet.
Here's what I want to avoid. Reddit has a horrible reputation, for hosting
racist and sexist groups, for trolls, for a lot of nastiness. I don't want any
part of that. While not a direct corollary to Groups.io, Twitter also has a
problem with a lot of harassment. Many people don't feel safe using those
services. In the real world, many science fiction conventions (amongst others)
have realized that they need a code of conduct because bad behavior was
happening (mainly sexual harassment, I believe).
It seems to me that there are some general things that would apply to all
groups: no harassment, no racism, etc. By establishing a CoC, my hope would be
that it would head off some of this behavior. I would hope that all Groups.io
moderators would want Groups.io to have a good reputation. It would only help
you.
Does this make what I'm trying to get at more clear? Thoughts appreciated.
Thanks,
Mark
|
|
|
locked
Re: Duplicate messages bug?
weebeequilting <weebee.1@...>
Shal,
I have been in touch with Mark about this and I feel (and I think he agrees) the problem revolves around the buttons and wording on the Posting page. I have had members wonder why their messages did not show up on the group. After discussing things with them, I realize they are clicking on Post instead of scrolling to the bottom and clicking on Send. To many people Post is the same as Send. I have made some suggestions to Mark and hopefully, if implemented, it will clear the problem up.
Janice B
AZ
|
|
|
locked
Re: Code of conduct
J, Ok thanks for pointing that out..I appreciate it.
|
|
|
locked
Re: Code of conduct
Also, not UK writers. But this is OT.
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:52 AM, vickie via Groups.io <vickie_00@...> wrote: J>>. conservative. That's not the case. It was an assumption on my part.. sorry
-- Janet-Olivia I never feel sorry about what happened yesterday nor do I worry about what might happen tomorrow. "The Contented Little Pussycat" - Frances Ruth Keller
|
|
|
locked
Re: Code of conduct
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Mark Bielecki via Groups.io <msb05001@...> wrote: Hi Mark, It seems to me that every group on Groups.io already has the perfect Code of Conduct enforcement method in place: if a member has an issue with something that has been posted, regardless of how popular or unpopular your viewpoint on that issue is, that member can ... leave the group. Anybody who is offended by anything at all merely has to leave the group and will no longer be offended by anything posted in that group. Really quite simple, and in its own way it's really quite elegant as well. If a group's conduct becomes unacceptable to enough people there will no longer be a group; problem solved, all by itself. It's hard to be racist, sexist, or anything else-ist to others if there's nobody else there to listen! If the group's conduct is acceptable to some or many people then those people will continue together as a group of like-minded individuals, whether here on Groups.io or elsewhere. The question that immediately comes to mind when I hear code of conduct and private groups (and these are private groups, even if they are open to the pubic, unless they're supported by government money) is: who is appointed the Official & Final Arbiter of Conduct? And who decides who appoints this ultimate authoritarian? And who decides who gets to decide who appoints him or her, ad nauseum. Different people have different levels of tolerance, and depending upon the setting, circumstances, relationship of the individuals or group, etc., what may be nothing at all to one group of people may be utter blasphemy or outrageous behavior to others. As some have already mentioned, Yahoo! bans certain words that can be considered vulgar or profane in some circumstances and are purely mainstream and acceptable in others: bitch and ass come to mind (anyone who can't figure out the problems here then one shouldn't even be part of this discussion!). I previously wrote about my offering to sell "Al's balls" on one of my groups, and the problems that it caused because somebody either didn't understand the context, the subject, or simply wanted to cause problems for that group with Yahoo!. Religion and politics and even science groups are ripe for and rife with potential issues; the Christian west, as an example, has concepts of free speech which include the assumed right to commentary and satire -- verbal, written, and visual -- while some religious groups, such as far right ultra orthodox Islam (my description) has real problems with those things when they are applied to Allah and Islam, resulting in the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Salman Rushdie for writing and publishing his book "The Satanic Verses" and twelve people being killed at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical magazine that published controversial Muhammad cartoons after Muslim clerics declared them to be blasphemous. Out of curiosity, Mark, if Ayatollah Ruhollah started a Groups.io group to discuss Muslim theology and blasphemy, who would be the arbiter of the code of conduct on their discussions if a conservative Christian complained? Would that arbiter of conduct have any moral authority to censor or ban one of the highest clerics of Islam theology? That person would be damned if he did, and damned if he didn't! What if a Groups.io group is started to discuss "The Satanic Verses" and somebody complains that it's blasphemous to the Groups.io Conduct Authority? What if Salman Rushdie himself starts the group, or joins in the conversation or debate? Similar issues as above. What if a group of religious or free speech academics or even just plain old people started a group to discuss the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the underlying issues, re-posted those cartoons on their Groups.io group, and a conservative Muslim complained? Would that arbiter of conduct have any moral authority to censor or ban the free expression and discussion (including the posting of blasphemous or non-blasphemous cartoons, depending upon one's point-of-view) by religious or first amendment scholars -- or people merely interested in discussing / debating the issues? Again, the arbiter of conduct would be damned if he did, and damned if he didn't! Take the example above even one step further: What if Groups.io doesn't censor or ban the Charlie Hebdo group, and a bunch of conservative Christians, freedom of speech advocates, and conservative Muslims all join the group and start an intense debate on the matter. Somebody complains to Groups.io about a code of conduct violation -- who at Groups.io has the authority and depth of insight and knowledge to decide what's OK, what's not, who's in the right, who's not? I know I wouldn't be as I'm neither a religious authority or a free speech scholar, and I'm guessing Groups.io has neither on staff. Even if your staff had one, obviously there's some pretty deeply held religious beliefs being discussed here and the blasphemy issue will never be answered on a Groups.io group or by a Groups.io Code of COnduct arbiter or censor, though there is obvious value to there being a venue to have the debate. What will you do: ban ALL discussion of a religious nature, or to be safe ban ANY discussion that will generate controversy and code of conduct complaints? The obvious answer is to leave the moderators in charge of their own groups' conduct, and let the members vote with their feet: stay if it's OK, leave if it isn't. Simple and elegant, with the added benefit of keeping extremists from issuing fatwas on staff members of Groups.io! <--tongue in cheek humor, in case that wasn't clear! The whole Code of Conduct idea is a bad idea from the start if it's going to be imposed on the groups by Groups.io itself. Let the group owners/moderators determine their groups' culture and mores and conduct, and let the members signal their approval or disapproval by subscribing or unsubscribing. Mark, if you are truly concerned about Groups.io getting some sort of "bad" reputation like some other communications platforms, might I suggest that to address your concerns without embroiling yourself and your staff in code of conduct issues and problems that you simply retain the authority to require groups which leave you uncomfortable or concerned to switch over to being private groups instead of public groups? Problem solved with public image issues for Groups.io; anybody who joins a private group at that point has gone looking for whatever they found, especially if you allow a label such as "restricted" or "adult" or some other similar rating or label that notifies the potential subscriber that there may be some concerns for the faint hearted amongst us. Best, Mark Bielecki
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 03:08 pm, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
Hi All,
|
|
|
Beta Integration <beta@...>
|
|
|
Beta Integration <beta@...>
|
|
|
Beta Integration <beta@...>
[Beta] New card " Quirks with implicit ownership of a subgroup." was added to list "Member Management".
[Beta] The description of card "Quirks with implicit ownership of a subgroup." was changed to:
https://groups.io/g/beta/message/5704
At least that was my assumption when coding it. I didn't add
subscription records for parent mods, instead I modified the permissions
checks. Should I put in subscription records?
That was what I was wondering out loud.
My inclination is "yes" because that makes the truth evident (least-surprise). But I don't necessarily want to add complexity.
They'd be different from normal subs in that they couldn't be removed.
With the modified checks still in place that wouldn't be crucial - the parent group owner/mod could still exert control even if someone succeeded in removing their subscription record. But allowing that possibility violates the least-surprise.
There's a conceptual precedent: the "last owner" restriction in the parent group. In a subgroup the rule is different but the effect is the same.
What happens if the moderators don't want emails?
That's the beauty of making subscription records: the parent group owner/mod then has a recognized means to control his subgroup subscription (and notifications).
Do I default to No Mail?
Hm.. Maybe copying that person's main group subscription settings would be the most generally useful. There are bound to be groups which would wish for a uniform initial setting, but I haven't thought of a good justification for any one setting.
What happens if a moderator of the parent group is removed as moderator
then? Is the sub group subscription deleted? But what if they wanted to
receive email/otherwise be subscribed?
If removed or banned from the parent group then also removed from all subgroups, per the "must be a parent group subscriber" rule.
If demoted to member in the parent group then it may be best to demote that person to member in the subgroups as well. Otherwise the owners of the parent group might face a tedious chore if there were a large number of subgroups and the moderator/owner in question was demoted in the parent group "for cause".
But I don't think the person needs to lose their subgroup subscriptions due to demotion in the parent group, even though those subscriptions came about automatically because of their former role.
[Beta] The yellow label "Member Management" was added to the card "Quirks with implicit ownership of a subgroup.".
|
|
|
Beta Integration <beta@...>
[Beta] New card " Switching Message Views should try to preserve your place in the archives." was added to list "Messages and Archives".
[Beta] The description of card "Switching Message Views should try to preserve your place in the archives." was changed to:
https://groups.io/g/beta/message/5883
First, you go to my subgroup:
https://groups.io/g/MMsanctuary+modsandmembers/messages
I'm in Message View.
Then I have to switch to Thread View to do a search, I type "Marius" in the search box.
https://groups.io/g/MMsanctuary+modsandmembers/threads?p=RecentPostDate%2C%2C%2C20%2C2%2C0%2C0&q=Marius
Then I click on "View all 8 topic matches" at the bottom and get this:
https://groups.io/g/MMsanctuary+modsandmembers/threads?p=RecentPostDate,topic,Marius,20,2,0,0
Then I click on the second one:
https://groups.io/g/MMsanctuary+modsandmembers/thread/marius_s_more_databases/431228?p=,,,20,0,0,0:RecentPostDate,topic,Marius,20,2,0,431228
Then, when in that message, I want to switch to message view and read the ones around it, when I click on Message view, I get this:
https://groups.io/g/MMsanctuary+modsandmembers/messages
It jumps me to the end of the messages. (and in this case, that is the final one, as no posting is happening in it).
Is there a way to switch to message view while in a past post and STAY in message view so that I can read the posts around it?
[Beta] The blue label "Messages & Archives" was added to the card "Switching Message Views should try to preserve your place in the archives.".
|
|
|
locked
Re: messages in thread don't bear thread's hashtags in message view
#bug
Hi J,
Can you send me a link to this thread off-list? I'll take a look.
Thanks, Mark
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:09 PM, J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote: I have a long thread in my group that started awhile back. I added a couple of hashtags to it yesterday, and this morning, several messages were added to the thread. Later on, I was screwing around with merge and split, and now, when I look in message view, only some of the messages that are still (or again) part of the thread bear the hashtags when looking at message view. Yet they do bear the tags when each individual message is clicked on. This could be another facet of the bug wherein message preview is not updated to reflect message edits. I don't know. It is similar in some ways. J
|
|
|
Beta Integration <beta@...>
|
|
|
locked
Re: Code of conduct
J>>. conservative. That's not the case. It was an assumption on my part.. sorry
|
|
|
locked
Re: Received: header lines
|
|
|
locked
Re: Code of conduct
Mark B I realize what you said. I am saying Mark would has a right to keep an eyes on such groups in the event Quote un quote :If there is intent to engage people in the act of harming someone or inject the act of terrorism Not saying there is intent.. Key word is If...
Sorry Mark if my opinion bothered you. It was not my intent..
Poor communication sometimes happens and I don't want that to happen.
Out of respect for you, I guess it is time for me to bow out of this conversation.
From: Mark Bielecki via Groups.io <msb05001@...>
To: beta@groups.io
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 12:31 PM
Subject: [beta] Re: Code of conduct #CoC
Hi Vickie, I didn't ask what Mark F. would do if the Ayatollah started a group on Groups.io to issue a fatwa, what I wrote was a question about if the Ayatollah started a group on Groups.io to discuss Muslim theology and blasphemy, TOTALLY DIFFERENT things altogether! While I'm sure many of us have read the TOS for Groups.io I personally would wonder about anybody who had memorized it or knew it by heart! < g > Best, Mark Bielecki
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 09:01 am, vickie <vickie_00@...> wrote:
Mark B>>>Out of curiosity, Mark, if Ayatollah Ruhollah started a Groups.io group to discuss Muslim theology and blasphemy, who would be the arbiter of the code of conduct on their discussions if a conservative Christian complained? You can't use this as an example. Twitter has shut down many accounts for the example you just submitted. If there is intent to engage people in the act of harming someone or inject the act of terrorism because of religious theology it is against the law.. with that said Mark has a right to keep a tight reign and eyes on this sort of thing. If Mark creates his own code of conduct for his website, the courts do not get involved with that and his terms of service covers everything else..
Which by the way. I would like to know how many of you have read Marks terms of service in full.
You all should know it by heart while registered in his website.
Peace!
From: Mark Bielecki via Groups.io <msb05001@...>
To: beta@groups.io
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 10:28 AM
Subject: [beta] Re: Code of conduct #CoC
Hi Mark, It seems to me that every group on Groups.io already has the perfect Code of Conduct enforcement method in place: if a member has an issue with something that has been posted, regardless of how popular or unpopular your viewpoint on that issue is, that member can ... leave the group. Anybody who is offended by anything at all merely has to leave the group and will no longer be offended by anything posted in that group. Really quite simple, and in its own way it's really quite elegant as well. If a group's conduct becomes unacceptable to enough people there will no longer be a group; problem solved, all by itself. It's hard to be racist, sexist, or anything else-ist to others if there's nobody else there to listen! If the group's conduct is acceptable to some or many people then those people will continue together as a group of like-minded individuals, whether here on Groups.io or elsewhere. The question that immediately comes to mind when I hear code of conduct and private groups (and these are private groups, even if they are open to the pubic, unless they're supported by government money) is: who is appointed the Official & Final Arbiter of Conduct? And who decides who appoints this ultimate authoritarian? And who decides who gets to decide who appoints him or her, ad nauseum. Different people have different levels of tolerance, and depending upon the setting, circumstances, relationship of the individuals or group, etc., what may be nothing at all to one group of people may be utter blasphemy or outrageous behavior to others. As some have already mentioned, Yahoo! bans certain words that can be considered vulgar or profane in some circumstances and are purely mainstream and acceptable in others: bitch and ass come to mind (anyone who can't figure out the problems here then one shouldn't even be part of this discussion!). I previously wrote about my offering to sell "Al's balls" on one of my groups, and the problems that it caused because somebody either didn't understand the context, the subject, or simply wanted to cause problems for that group with Yahoo!. Religion and politics and even science groups are ripe for and rife with potential issues; the Christian west, as an example, has concepts of free speech which include the assumed right to commentary and satire -- verbal, written, and visual -- while some religious groups, such as far right ultra orthodox Islam (my description) has real problems with those things when they are applied to Allah and Islam, resulting in the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Salman Rushdie for writing and publishing his book "The Satanic Verses" and twelve people being killed at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical magazine that published controversial Muhammad cartoons after Muslim clerics declared them to be blasphemous. Out of curiosity, Mark, if Ayatollah Ruhollah started a Groups.io group to discuss Muslim theology and blasphemy, who would be the arbiter of the code of conduct on their discussions if a conservative Christian complained? Would that arbiter of conduct have any moral authority to censor or ban one of the highest clerics of Islam theology? That person would be damned if he did, and damned if he didn't! What if a Groups.io group is started to discuss "The Satanic Verses" and somebody complains that it's blasphemous to the Groups.io Conduct Authority? What if Salman Rushdie himself starts the group, or joins in the conversation or debate? Similar issues as above. What if a group of religious or free speech academics or even just plain old people started a group to discuss the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the underlying issues, re-posted those cartoons on their Groups.io group, and a conservative Muslim complained? Would that arbiter of conduct have any moral authority to censor or ban the free expression and discussion (including the posting of blasphemous or non-blasphemous cartoons, depending upon one's point-of-view) by religious or first amendment scholars -- or people merely interested in discussing / debating the issues? Again, the arbiter of conduct would be damned if he did, and damned if he didn't! Take the example above even one step further: What if Groups.io doesn't censor or ban the Charlie Hebdo group, and a bunch of conservative Christians, freedom of speech advocates, and conservative Muslims all join the group and start an intense debate on the matter. Somebody complains to Groups.io about a code of conduct violation -- who at Groups.io has the authority and depth of insight and knowledge to decide what's OK, what's not, who's in the right, who's not? I know I wouldn't be as I'm neither a religious authority or a free speech scholar, and I'm guessing Groups.io has neither on staff. Even if your staff had one, obviously there's some pretty deeply held religious beliefs being discussed here and the blasphemy issue will never be answered on a Groups.io group or by a Groups.io Code of COnduct arbiter or censor, though there is obvious value to there being a venue to have the debate. What will you do: ban ALL discussion of a religious nature, or to be safe ban ANY discussion that will generate controversy and code of conduct complaints? The obvious answer is to leave the moderators in charge of their own groups' conduct, and let the members vote with their feet: stay if it's OK, leave if it isn't. Simple and elegant, with the added benefit of keeping extremists from issuing fatwas on staff members of Groups.io! <--tongue in cheek humor, in case that wasn't clear! The whole Code of Conduct idea is a bad idea from the start if it's going to be imposed on the groups by Groups.io itself. Let the group owners/moderators determine their groups' culture and mores and conduct, and let the members signal their approval or disapproval by subscribing or unsubscribing. Mark, if you are truly concerned about Groups.io getting some sort of "bad" reputation like some other communications platforms, might I suggest that to address your concerns without embroiling yourself and your staff in code of conduct issues and problems that you simply retain the authority to require groups which leave you uncomfortable or concerned to switch over to being private groups instead of public groups? Problem solved with public image issues for Groups.io; anybody who joins a private group at that point has gone looking for whatever they found, especially if you allow a label such as "restricted" or "adult" or some other similar rating or label that notifies the potential subscriber that there may be some concerns for the faint hearted amongst us. Best, Mark Bielecki
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 03:08 pm, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
Hi All,
|
|
|
locked
Re: Code of conduct
Vickie, My comment that the authors are referring to U.S. law was simply a factual note in response to yours that the author was in the UK and therefore conservative. That's not the case. Again: I don't doubt what you say here about international law. IANAL. J
|
|
|
locked
Re: Code of conduct
I agree J.. It is about food for thought.. Thank you hon
From: J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...>
To: beta@groups.io
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 12:18 PM
Subject: [beta] Re: Code of conduct #CoC
[Edited Message Follows]
[Reason: added p.s.]
Vickie, There are numerous contributors and the editors are both law professors at U. Chicago. J p.s. The authors don't propose one thing or another with respect to the specific issue here. I recommended the book just as food for thought and a different way of looking at things. So it's not an argument. :-)
|
|
|
