Date   

moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

KWKloeber
 

Ok I get the point.  Don’t pike on meaningless “me too, three” posts if it’s a software feature, but do so if it’s discussing a policy.  Ya. Really?

Yes, that characterization of the political group is true and it holds true no matter the leaning (left right or up or down.) Mark just “happened” to pick that one and that’s the reason I pointed out the fallacy in some of the replies. If the support was for MAGA, the same would hold true.  It’s not a political statement about their goals (end results) and not implied to be (which btw I happen to lean toward — in this recent “climate change” at least.)  Maybe that’s a hint about the request for “neutrality vs an agenda,” (and not a hidden agenda on my part?)

I believe he should rather support Labs (Yellow? Chocolate? Golden? it’s difficult to decide.). But then again as both a feline and Papillon lover moving to Lab support it’s a hard row to hoe. 😎



WHAT DO YOU THINK, ISLA-JEAN?  NATURAL OR PAINT THE  BRICK BRICK  WHITE?










BTW, I do care what your leanings are, and everyone’s as well. It would be much more worthwhile to know those of all Americans and not of the paid pundits who are paid by the networks in order  to foster division and raise ratings, instead of doing the harder work to present facts. 


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

KWKloeber
 

Maria

Caps for emphasis. Three words I believe?  Certainly not intended to be inflammatory, but if taken that way PLEASE (LOL) substitute an underline or bold for caps. 

Theres a huge difference between a company supporting a cause, and say, Apple or Verizon putting on their store banner “free phone and free service if you are a MAGA (or cross out and insert “x” here) supporter.”  It’s a false equivalency. 


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

Maria
 

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:13 PM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
And the purpose of discussion here is to improve on it debate the merits (or demerits) of a request. That’s not what the reply was — it was a knee jerk, “I’m just against this.”  Shal’s and others’ recent thoughtful discussions are what is enlightening. The knee jerk popularity poll “me too, three, four, sixteen, I’ve lost count” is what’s detrimental to the process.
Ken,

Agree that discussion here should focus on the merits ( or demerits) of a feature - or policy - and suggestions regarding these.
That said - and I usually try to keep my contributions focused on debating the issues not the individual - if you don't like the knee jerk reactions - please re-read your initial original post.

The tone of it, your choice of words, your CAPS, exclamation points, your bolds, underlining  - it reads remarkably rude and forceful.
Your insinuations of a "hidden political agenda", referring to "conditions" where there are none. Use of the word "suckering" just because Groups.io openly and transparently decided to comp upgrades to one grassroots org back in 2017.

If you want to ignite healthy respectful and thoughtful reflection on policies and not incite knee jerk reactions - you might want to try a different approach when you suggest (or "request" as you wrote) what grassroots orgs, causes etc., a business owner decides to comp on an upgrade.

Also a more accurate subject line would have been: Reviewing Policy Re: Free Upgrades to Premium Service.
Your subject line is inaccurate. Groups.io is free for all. It's up to groups to decide if they need the premium services.

And it's up to Groups.io to decide which organizations - if any - they elect to subsidize.
Just like Apple gives discounts to certain entities and categories of people (students/veterans) and not others.
Just like Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, Twitter, Microsoft, Whole Foods and countless others dedicate a whole arm of their business to supporting causes.

If anything good comes of this topic - again, I hope it's that it carves out time for Groups.io to broaden the reach of how they want to help NGO's, charities, and causes.
This is a MUCH ( sorry caps) better platform for any organization trying to do good than facebook will ever be.

Maria


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

Michael Pavan
 

Many people support causes they believe in, and many company owners do so through their company. In Mark's case the easiest and probably most effective way for him to do that is by offering a Groups.io discount in a clearly defined way. I see it as no different than anybody else making a monetary donation in an open, non-secret manner.

The complaint seems to be that the way Mark is doing so is not PC. Since such support is not inappropriate, the suggestion is essentially that the wording should be:
"Apply for a discount if you believe your cause is worthy"
This not only makes what causes are supported a secret, but would also create a lot of extra work to have to field and reject/ignore many inquiries.

Besides the 'cat already being out of the bag', I see no good reason to cloak political support with secrecy - there is too much of that already. Not to mention it would make it harder for anyone know who wants to not use Groups.io good service.




-- .--- .--.


moderated Re: Need help figuring out a policy on this

Ken Schweizer
 

Hi Mark,

 

There really is no way to prevent this as long as there are multiple owners of a group. One possible deterrent would be to not allow an owner to be deleted by a single owner, i.e. two unique owners, with x months of ownership, are required to delete another owner. This wouldn't prevent a hijacking as an owner can set up a fantom owner to validate the deletion.

 

The only way to prevent this is for the group's owner to "know" anyone they promote to a co-owner.

 

Just my thoughts,

Ken

 

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." God

 

From: main@beta.groups.io [mailto:main@beta.groups.io] On Behalf Of Mark Fletcher
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 11:52 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: [beta] Need help figuring out a policy on this

 

Hi All,

 

4+ years in, and I've avoided anything like this so far, but I need help crafting a policy for the following scenario. It involves a Yahoo Group that was transferred. The Y!Group has been deleted, and I don't have the original transfer records anymore. This anonymized email lays things out:

 

I'm writing to inform you that I understand that Mr X was removed as list moderator by Mr Y.
Mr X was the original owner of the list, and now Mr Y has removed Mr X as a list member.
I was removed some months back for [REDACTED and not important]. I don't fully understand how Mr Y stole the list from Mr X, probably because Mr Y was assisting with moderating. I have known Mr X for nearly twenty years and I know him to be a fair and honest person.

 

I need a policy for how to handle a supposed group hijacking. Also, suggestions for features to make this more difficult in the future would be appreciated.

 

Thanks,
Mark 


moderated Re: Queued emails prematurely deleted

Ken Schweizer
 

Hi Mark,

 

Just proves you're human!!

 

Ken

 

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." God

 

From: main@beta.groups.io [mailto:main@beta.groups.io] On Behalf Of Mark Fletcher
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 6:42 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: [beta] Queued emails prematurely deleted

 

Hi All,

 

When we send an email, if we're unable to send it at the moment we get it, we put it in a queue and periodically retry sending it for 7 days, using an exponential backoff algorithm. Unfortunately, due to a programming error on my part, I accidentally deleted many of these queued messages this afternoon before their 7 days were up. Many of these messages would never have been delivered, due to receiving machine issues, but some would have (I don't have exact numbers available). I have fixed the bug and added additional checks to make sure this won't happen again. I sincerely apologize for the screwup.

 

Mark


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

 

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 09:13 AM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
<<<You were not suggesting a feature.>>>
 
Again, I already said I didn’t know where to raise this.   Whether it’s a feature of io might be an honest debate.  Or one of those distinctions w/o a difference?  Policies are sometimes also discussed herein (ahem, Mark’s last topic, for instance?)
Nobody said it was wrong to raise this issue here. I and a couple of others were pointing out that Mark's asking not to debate the value of features applies to features. He did not say not to debate groups.io philosophical issues, or "policies." Yet you tried to cite that limitation to preclude debate about your issue. I don't think this is a distinction without a difference. A feature is part of a piece of software that users can use. This is not that. Perhaps Mark meant the limitation to include debates about broader issues and not just features. But that was not how he phrased it, and that was not how it's been taken here, and that's why your citing of it to preclude discussion of your issue did not seem appropriate .

<<<not leaning one way or the other" about Indivisible, you expressed your negative opinion of it.>>>
I’m not positive of which statement(s), just to avoid the obvious, please quote so I can be precise in my reply?
Right here: "Indivisible does not promote unity, it promotes defeat by garnering greater numbers, which leads to more division and gridlock" 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

KWKloeber
 

<<<It's that after posting it, you tried to stop communication about it by calling on Mark's rule about not debating the value of features. >>>

I believe that you missed my point on my follow up.  I did not try to prevent discussion — even my senior pea brain knows that I couldn’t do that :-).  That obvious was one of what I call the knee-jerk posts, eager to tap out a retort while not comprehending the OP.   In part, he disagreed with me (what, that I had already said its Marks baby and can do what he wants??). And the purpose of discussion here is to improve on it debate the merits (or demerits) of a request. That’s not what the reply was — it was a knee jerk, “I’m just against this.”  Shal’s and others’ recent thoughtful discussions are what is enlightening. The knee jerk popularity poll “me too, three, four, sixteen, I’ve lost count” is what’s detrimental to the process.


<<<You were not suggesting a feature.>>>

Again, I already said I didn’t know where to raise this.   Whether it’s a feature of io might be an honest debate.  Or one of those distinctions w/o a difference?  Policies are sometimes also discussed herein (ahem, Mark’s last topic, for instance?)

The real benefits to this is open meaningful intelligent thoughtful discussion, which is not enhanced by piling on by either side or knee jerking.  As I’ve said before, “if it’s a poll, then start an effin poll.” Jeeez, you liked that when I said it the previous time LOL!!!

<<<not leaning one way or the other" about Indivisible, you expressed your negative opinion of it.>>>
I’m not positive of which statement(s), just to avoid the obvious, please quote so I can be precise in my reply?

We agree!! J, (that’s a good common ground start) politics is banned, however discussion about policies about politics (either leaning) should not be. And I’m not suggesting that you are proposing that. 


moderated Re: Need help figuring out a policy on this

andy t
 

I personally would like to see a rule that the original owner that started the group on groups.io can’t be removed by any co-owner because there are some power hungry people out there that want to destroy a group for no reason at all.

I had a group stolen from me and I started the group over here with the permission of the original owner of the yahoo group and I am not naming any names on here and after 2 years over here I was removed as an owner even though I started the group over here.

I was trying to be fair when we moved and I made him a co-owner and I was removed from the group and then he closed the group for no reason.

I don’t think this was right or fair.

I know some of you will say I shouldn’t have made him an owner but I was trying to treat him with respect but I originally started the group over here and that should count for something.

He was going to close the yahoo group and I ask him if I could take it over and he gladly said yes and I got shafted for trying to do the right thing.

That is why I think something could be dun to protect the original groups.io owner.

Thanks for reading this.

From: main@beta.groups.io <main@beta.groups.io> On Behalf Of J_Catlady
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 10:16 AM
To: main@beta.groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Need help figuring out a policy on this

 

What about group owners having "groups.io living wills"? I don't see any other way around the situation where an owner *legitimately* goes missing or gets hit by the proverbial truck. Group owners could, optionally, set up directives about what to do if and when situations occur that include others claiming they've gone missing (whether valid or not).
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Need help figuring out a policy on this

Jim Wilson
 

I'm all about simple.

Mr. X, if ever an actual owner, would have been required to assign Mr. Y as a second owner in order for Mr. X to be removed because it is not possible for a moderator to do so. The responsibility is then on Mr. X for making a bad call if (a) Mr. Y subsequently removed Mr. X, (b) Mr. X voluntarily relinquished ownership, or (c) in the unlikely event that Mr. Y somehow hacked Mr. X and nefariously transferred ownership without his knowledge.

Yahoo has very clear policy about this; the owner(s) is(are) the owner(s) and they will not get involved in disagreements, period. Of course, they haven't been involved in site maintenance for the last six months but that's another story.


moderated Re: Need help figuring out a policy on this

Chris Jones
 

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 01:17 PM, Bruce Bowman wrote:
I believe it is generally be in your best interest to avoid inserting yourself into a problem.
Mark; I think Bruce may have a good point there. Perhaps it depends on the scale of the problem; you will have a clearer view based on the traffic incoming to "support" than the members of beta or the GMF can have. Internal managerial disputes in any given group are likely to have all sorts of subtle nuances embedded in them, and trying to formulate a software solution might cause further complications; there is no merit in the solution to a problem being numerous other problems.

I can see the attractions of the "Founder" idea, but in reality in any given spat it might actually be the Founder that is "wrong" so having that status might not provide an effective solution. Formulating a workable policy might be the sort of thing that the UK Civil Service would consign to the Too Difficult tray, with good reason.

To (perhaps mis)quote a well - known one - time UK TV sitcom series satirising UK politics It is our policy not to have a policy on this matter.

Chris


moderated Re: Need help figuring out a policy on this

 

What about group owners having "groups.io living wills"? I don't see any other way around the situation where an owner *legitimately* goes missing or gets hit by the proverbial truck. Group owners could, optionally, set up directives about what to do if and when situations occur that include others claiming they've gone missing (whether valid or not).
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

 

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 05:42 AM, HR Tech wrote:
I'd urge you to go with your heart and facilitate - with your personal stamp - help to those orgs you feel will make the world a better place.
Another "amen" to that. I would urge the same. (Not much to worry about re ROW, by the way - not in this case.) 
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Need help figuring out a policy on this

Mark Irving
 

You could perhaps apply a rule that to downgrade the Owner status in a group with three or more co-owners, action by at least two owners should be required. That would make some sorts of malice more difficult, specifically displaing a group's original owner, but it wouldn't prevent any moderator vandalising a group in other ways.

As others have noted, this is mainly a problem for the group, not something groups.io can prevent. Just make it a little more difficult.

 - Mark


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

Maria
 

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 04:40 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
Groups.io is a product of global scope, and one presumably striving to be a reliable long-term service. In that light, I think that placing an advertisement for an organization based in topical U.S. partisan politics on an official (and prominent) page of the service is, at best, counterproductive.

(I realize that you're advertising to that group, not for that group, but in this context I think that is a distinction without a difference.)
I understand Shal's point, but have a different reaction - and a partially European perspective FWIW.

The giants of social media ( despite all the damage they have done and continue to do to privacy and democracy) - seem to have very clear approaches (now) to content that they will no longer support ( anti-vaccine groups / alt-right and any organized hate groups/people) - they either remove ads from their accounts so no one can make money off of content like that ( youtube) or change the coding so that groups like that don't get suggested to other people, and other strategies to not help them thrive - before they get kicked off. That's their prerogative. And there are plenty of alternative sites that folks engaged in organized hate etc can and do go to. Mostly start-ups.

Groups.io ( unlike youtube/twitter/facebook/instagram) doesn't make money from advertising or data tracking. The business model here is straight forward and transparent.
Groups on groups.io are clients of Groups.io
Groups.io provides a service.

If Groups.io wants to offer that service, or upgrades to that service to organizations that fit a certain category - so be it.
It's totally within the parameters of what other businesses do ( see non-profit rates etc).

I would think this is a good opportunity to focus on what kinds of groups Groups.io wants to provide free upgrades to - and those it doesn't. As well as those it simply doesn't want to take on as clients.

Because lets be clear - all other platforms have made that choice - whether it's by tweaking algorithms, banning, or inviting.

So, rather than specifically offer a free upgrade to only Indivisible ( which i think started in 2017 shortly after the election in the USA and shortly after the world realized how their use of facebook had actually provided data to 3rd parties) - I'd suggest crafting a clear policy for non-profits, NGO's, causes, Humanitarian orgs, or organizations that combat hate and discrimination - there may be Mark Fletcher "scholarships" for here on Groups.io.  Since it's a company of global reach, I'd urge Mark to think bigger, and by all means dedicate his personal support - through his company - to the causes he feels he wants to help.

So, you can separate it and call it the Cats of Groups.io Fund, Or the MF Fund for a kinder world - or whatever you want - but I'd urge you to go with your heart and facilitate - with your personal stamp - help to those orgs you feel will make the world a better place.

Maria



moderated Re: Need help figuring out a policy on this

Bruce Bowman
 

Mark -- Some of the feature suggestions made here might have marginal utility to head some of this off. Other than that, I believe it is generally be in your best interest to avoid inserting yourself into a problem. Better to fail to address 100 group hijackings than to aid and abet one of them.

Regards,
Bruce


moderated Re: Need help figuring out a policy on this

Duane
 

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 04:34 AM, Jeremy H wrote:
it should be set that the only person who can remove 'Owner' status (or delete such an id) is that person themselves, and that nobody else should be able to remove it
Even that may not be as simple as it seems.  It has happened (on YG!) that an owner went missing, but was not removed from the group.  Some time later, someone got access to their account and created havoc with the group.  By removing that account, the other owners were able to bring things under control.

I don't believe there will be a simple and/or universal solution to this divisive situation.  It appears to me that only the group members can make the ultimate decision, which may include creating a new group.  In many cases, the loss of the message archive would be painful, but I've done it before and it wasn't a tragedy.  Any 'outsider' may not have all the facts and could make an incorrect decision.

Duane


moderated Re: Need help figuring out a policy on this

Jeremy H
 

My thought is that - rather than mess about establishing an extra 'founder' status - it should be set that the only person who can remove 'Owner' status (or delete such an id) is that person themselves, and that nobody else should be able to remove it. And I think that is about the only technical thing that can or should be done. This would prevent someone else actually taking over a group (though you might get a situation of two rival owners) 

As to the 'political' (if I can put it that way) dimension, then the basic position is that Mark/Groups.io should endeavour not get involved (even as a referee), and to pass the issue back to the rival Owners, for them to come to an agreement - perhaps with the aid of a poll, and if they cannot, say 'a plague on both your houses', and freeze (i.e.set everything to read only) or delete the original group, and let them each set up their own replacement.

For the particular case in question, raised by a third party (Z) I think my attitude would be 'as far as groups.io is concerned, the group is (now) owned by Y, and this issue has not been raised by X, so, sorry, that's how it is' (a thought - did Y move the group without reference to X?)  

Jeremy


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

 

On 21 May 2019, at 09:52, Victoria via Groups.Io <dr.vcaesar@...> wrote:

Although (as a European) I very much admire the goals and commitment of Indivisible, I agree with Shal.

As another European (UK, where we know a thing or two about divisive politics 😉), I agree with Victoria’s comment above. However, were my political views more different, I might feel that I did not wish to be a part of such a platform, but that would be my choice.

Is it better to be completely transparent about this, or to present an entirely apparently neutral space? I tend to think that the ‘professional’ and the ‘personal’ are separate and one can present them as such.

kind regards

Nick
__

dUNMUR | member of the Association of Photographers



moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

 

Shal wrote: I think that placing an advertisement for an organization based in topical U.S. partisan politics on an official (and prominent) page of the service is, at best, counterproductive.

 

Although (as a European) I very much admire the goals and commitment of Indivisible, I agree with Shal.

 

Victoria

 

8661 - 8680 of 29680