Date   

moderated Re: Dealing with Terms of Service violations/other complaints

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Ro,

          It's not sophistry in any way.  The argumentation of ideas is central to the whole age of reason.

          But, the above aside, I want to make clear here something I just wrote privately to J, which is not private to her in any way and is central to the points I've been trying to make, and that I believe have been misunderstood because of each of our individual foci and attitudes that this whole exchange has engendered:

What I am having a problem with is that conception that a group owner of even the most highly specialized group, for which they are the only suitable expert to run it, should be able to literally obliterate it and its content "just because they want to and just because they founded it."   That content does not belong to the founder, it wasn't created by the founder, and most members of online groups expect any online content to be available as long as the service on which it originates exists.
 
           I have no problem with the concept of "instant lockdown" without any continued ability to post or change anything on a group if the owner/master administrator of said group specifies this as the disposition of the group and everyone is aware of that at time of joining, with the provision that the owner could change this if they found someone that they believed a suitable replacement for them in their absence.
 
           What I do not find tenable, in any way, is that just because someone founded a group they can literally "pick up their ball and go home" leaving no trace of the immense work of contributors to that group in place for others.   I have actually seen this happen in a fit of pique on the part of a group owner in one blind technology group (and these are hard to come by) and it was both devastating and wrong.
 
            The long and the short of it is I believe a group founder should have the ability to shut/lock down a group, but not erase what's already there.
 
             If we cannot agree on that then we really must simply agree to disagree.  I can't and will never see a years-long interchange between a wide variety of people, even if carefully shepherded during its creation by the person who had the vision to set it up in the first place, as being the sole possession of that person who had that vision.  It's not as though I haven't given this a lot of thought, either.  Sometimes people come to diametrically opposed viewpoints based on the same set of baseline data.  This may be one of those times.
--
Brian  - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1703, Build 15063  (dot level on request - it changes too often to keep in signature)
I worry a lot. . . I worry that no matter how cynical you become it's never enough to keep up.
    ~ Trudy, in Jane Wagner's 
            Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe


moderated Re: Dealing with Terms of Service violations/other complaints

 

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 09:19 am, Ro wrote:
I care about the cats, and only the cats. I wont allow a potentially harmful situation to exist, and that means not allowing others to take over my group. They can start their own, easy enough to do.  
Ditto! Word for word what I would say.

It's also the whole reason for my group's stringent guidelines about factual accuracy. It's not me wanting control. It's about not allowing cats to be put in danger.
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Dealing with Terms of Service violations/other complaints

 

Brian,

Any member of either my group or Ro's group would find your idea that either one of us is selfish laughable. We both give many, many hours of our time each week to help sick cats, with no expectation of thanks. Our group members and their cats rely on us and on our groups, and many cats' lives have been saved on account of us. One of my own cats' lives was saved by information I got after joining Ro's group (way back when we were both in yahoo). She has information about a certain cat disease that the vast majority of vets actually lack, and the same situation holds in my group, for a different disease. There's at least one cats group (for yet a different disease) that is pretty much the same. Cats would die without it, and the group exists and has attracted the membership it has because of the knowledge of its owner. There is no one in any of these groups who could conceivably take over without it resulting in a major CATastrophe. Simply put, cats would die.

That is just one specific case - cats groups. The point is that there seems to be a very limited idea in this thread of what a "group" consists of and what it is meant to do, the roles of the participants (members vs. owners), the abilities of the various participants, and the results being achieved by the group and their importance of lack thereof. I don't even have to imagine very hard to imagine that there are other, completely different-chartered groups which also could not realistically or safely be taken over by some random group member not of the owner's choosing.

This conversation seems to exist on one dimension. You couldn't come up with all the possibilities because they are infinite. I think people need to open their minds. If groups.io tried to force this ill-conceived idea of forced group continuation, or forced group takeover, on all of its membership, there is likely to be a mass exodus. 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Dealing with Terms of Service violations/other complaints

Ro
 

You cant separate the holder of an idea from the idea. Attempting to do so is a piece of sophistry. 


Its precisely the welfare of the community that makes us believe we cannot just allow our groups to be continued by someone not of our choosing. Ignorance is rampant, and closure of the group is preferred to allowing bad and harmful advice to proliferate.   This was my goal on starting the group, and my goal if I choose to close it.  Its true I dont care about people in regards to my group.  I care about the cats, and only the cats. I wont allow a potentially harmful situation to exist, and that means not allowing others to take over my group. They can start their own, easy enough to do.  


Ro

with Silk gazing over the fence, and Sally, Handy, Feliz &  Police Kitty patrolling in the Great Beyond.  We note that advice given herein is not always the advice of Higher Management.  





From: main@beta.groups.io <main@beta.groups.io> on behalf of Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 9:13 AM
To: main@beta.groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Dealing with Terms of Service violations/other complaints
 
Ro,

          You and I have very different ideas of what constitutes an attack.   Yes, it's personal; no, it doesn't come close to being an attack.

          The ideas that you and J are promulgating regarding who owns a fully living group with many participants focuses very hugely on yourselves as owners at the expense of the community that's a huge part of the entire idea of "group."   I don't know how one can accurately characterize that other than as selfish or self-centered at the mildest.   That doesn't mean that either one of you is horrible or anything else that I would consider an attack.

           One can savage ideas without savaging the holders of those ideas as individuals.   This is at the very heart and soul of spirited debate.  I have not attacked either one of you.
--
Brian  - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1703, Build 15063  (dot level on request - it changes too often to keep in signature)
I worry a lot. . . I worry that no matter how cynical you become it's never enough to keep up.
    ~ Trudy, in Jane Wagner's 
            Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe


moderated Re: Dealing with Terms of Service violations/other complaints

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Ro,

          You and I have very different ideas of what constitutes an attack.   Yes, it's personal; no, it doesn't come close to being an attack.

          The ideas that you and J are promulgating regarding who owns a fully living group with many participants focuses very hugely on yourselves as owners at the expense of the community that's a huge part of the entire idea of "group."   I don't know how one can accurately characterize that other than as selfish or self-centered at the mildest.   That doesn't mean that either one of you is horrible or anything else that I would consider an attack.

           One can savage ideas without savaging the holders of those ideas as individuals.   This is at the very heart and soul of spirited debate.  I have not attacked either one of you.
--
Brian  - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1703, Build 15063  (dot level on request - it changes too often to keep in signature)
I worry a lot. . . I worry that no matter how cynical you become it's never enough to keep up.
    ~ Trudy, in Jane Wagner's 
            Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe


moderated Re: Dealing with Terms of Service violations/other complaints

Ro
 

There is no way that the word "selfish" is not a personal attack.


Ro


From: main@beta.groups.io <main@beta.groups.io> on behalf of Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 9:01 AM
To: main@beta.groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Dealing with Terms of Service violations/other complaints
 
Interesting.   Selfish, short-sighted, "having trouble seeing the collaborative nature of groups," and expressing the opinion that your position "borders on the megalomaniacal" (since I wrote it, I can repeat it) doesn't constitute name-calling in my book.

I still have a great, great deal of respect for you.  What I don't have, and am not obligated to have, is great respect for what I find to be a fatally flawed conception about actual ownership of what becomes a community resource.   It is not untoward for those who do not share those views to express same forcefully and, in my opinion, accurately.

Whether you appreciate it or not is irrelevant.  It is your ideas that are being called-out and questioned.  No one is attacking you as a horrible person nor engaging in schoolyard name-calling.

--
Brian  - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1703, Build 15063  (dot level on request - it changes too often to keep in signature)
I worry a lot. . . I worry that no matter how cynical you become it's never enough to keep up.
    ~ Trudy, in Jane Wagner's 
            Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe


moderated Re: Dealing with Terms of Service violations/other complaints

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Interesting.   Selfish, short-sighted, "having trouble seeing the collaborative nature of groups," and expressing the opinion that your position "borders on the megalomaniacal" (since I wrote it, I can repeat it) doesn't constitute name-calling in my book.

I still have a great, great deal of respect for you.  What I don't have, and am not obligated to have, is great respect for what I find to be a fatally flawed conception about actual ownership of what becomes a community resource.   It is not untoward for those who do not share those views to express same forcefully and, in my opinion, accurately.

Whether you appreciate it or not is irrelevant.  It is your ideas that are being called-out and questioned.  No one is attacking you as a horrible person nor engaging in schoolyard name-calling.

--
Brian  - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1703, Build 15063  (dot level on request - it changes too often to keep in signature)
I worry a lot. . . I worry that no matter how cynical you become it's never enough to keep up.
    ~ Trudy, in Jane Wagner's 
            Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe


moderated Re: Dealing with Terms of Service violations/other complaints

 

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 08:36 am, Ro wrote:
I notice some name calling in this thread,,, that seems really inappropriate
Thank you, Ro. I have now been been accused in this thread of being "selfish," "short-sighted," "having trouble seeing the collaborative nature of groups" (and possibly other things - I can't keep track of it all). And in an offlist post, someone said "megalomaniac."

I don't appreciate it.
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Dealing with Terms of Service violations/other complaints

 

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 08:36 am, Ro wrote:
There is NO one that has sufficient knowledge to take it over without possible harm to the animals I am trying to help.  
That is the exact situation in my group, with the sole exception of the board-certified vet specialist who donates his time to participate in the group. And he surely has no desire or time to actually run the group.

In short, owners have the right to start groups and end them.
Right! Yes! It's black-and-white, clear cut, extremely simple and obvious.

Why this conversation is even ongoing is a mystery to me. It astounds me that anyone would think otherwise. I, too, would take my whole group over to another platform if any of this were enacted, and never dream of setting foot in groups.io again. I'm sure that outside of this beta group, most group owners feel similarly. But, as I've said, I have full confidence in Mark that this will never happen. 
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Dealing with Terms of Service violations/other complaints

Ro
 

Coming in late to this discussion.  I created my group. There is NO one that has sufficient knowledge to take it over without possible harm to the animals I am trying to help.  Well at least, no one currently in the group.   If rules were to be changed that owners cant delete their group at will, then I would immediately close my groups, leave the IO format and never return, and stop recommending IO to people I know starting groups.    i started my group, I have the right to end it, period.   If a GROUP of people decide to start a group they dont want ever closed, and that is made clear, then I would only agree then that there could be format to not allow a single person to end the group. 

I notice some name calling in this thread,,, that seems really inappropriate to do that because someone disagrees with a position you have taken.

In short, owners have the right to start groups and end them.

People have the right to start groups and ask for a way to prevent a single person from ending it, IF that is their expressed wish as group owners/founders/moderator.

BTW, its foolish to think one cant close a group if one wishes to do so.  I cant imagine Mark taking the time and effort to close all the back doors to owner group sabotage if such a rule is put in place.

Ro


moderated Re: Dealing with Terms of Service violations/other complaints

 

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 08:07 am, Duane wrote:
without allowing others to determine what is important
That's for sure! Including being forced or not to hand the group over to someone not of one's choosing.
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Dealing with Terms of Service violations/other complaints

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:11 pm, J_Catlady wrote:
Suggest to them that if their group grows large and people are becoming depending on the group that they have a succession plan. But DON'T force it on them.
Most owners do not have this much foresight, particularly when what sometimes started on a whim takes on a life of its own.

I do think a succession plan should be forced on an owner.  But I hasten to add that one of the options that could, and indeed should, be included is "no succession."  Effectively when the group founder dies the group goes on lock down once the service provider has been notified of the death, and it would be up to the founder to have made provision for someone to notify the service provider of their death and provide proof of same.

It does not, however, vanish from the surface of the cyber-earth.   The information exchange in a group is not, and should not in any way, be considered the sole property of the individual who happens to have founded it.   As soon as multiple participants are involved in a venue that is a community exchange of ideas and information the idea of sole ownership becomes untenable.
 
--
Brian  - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1703, Build 15063  (dot level on request - it changes too often to keep in signature)
I worry a lot. . . I worry that no matter how cynical you become it's never enough to keep up.
    ~ Trudy, in Jane Wagner's 
            Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe


moderated Re: OWNED or ADMINISTERED #suggestion

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Everett,

          Actually, to further split a hair, but I think it's an important one, Groups.io is an owned service or owned service provider.   It does not, in any meaningful sense, own the content of any of the groups that get created here, even under the law.   Copyright is maintained by the respective writers of new content, etc.

          We still have not come to terms with parallel constructions in the internet age that were put in place in the early days of the telecommunications age.  Telecommunications providers do not own any of the content which they transmit, but they do own the infrastructure over which it's transmitted.  That is, at least from a practical perspective, the same thing that is occurring on services such as this one.

           The courts have come to recognize this partially, particularly where copyright infringement has occurred.  Services such as Groups.io have consistently been held harmless for any infringement on the part of the membership.  It is the member who is responsible for the infringement.  The only thing, and it's entirely reasonable, that the transmitting entity is expected to do is to follow any legal take down order to make their infrastructure support for said infringement cease, as it's more permanent in nature than conventional telecommunications, which are ephemeral.
--
Brian  - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1703, Build 15063  (dot level on request - it changes too often to keep in signature)
I worry a lot. . . I worry that no matter how cynical you become it's never enough to keep up.
    ~ Trudy, in Jane Wagner's 
            Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe


moderated Re: Dealing with Terms of Service violations/other complaints

Duane
 

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 03:26 pm, J_Catlady wrote:


what I consider petty issues
I think it's great that we can all run our groups as needed, without allowing others to determine what is important.

Duane


moderated Re: Dealing with Terms of Service violations/other complaints

 

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 07:49 am, J_Catlady wrote:
Only the founder would be able to delete a group.
It really doesn't matter what it's called, but this would be a sole individual (rather than multiple owners) and they should have a mechanism for succession if they want to hand the reins to someone else. 
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Dealing with Terms of Service violations/other complaints

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 06:52 am, James Milligan wrote:
If there's only one owner, regardless of whether it's free or paid, they're the owner of the group, ultimately it's their call what they do with it. If your community(ies) don't want that to happen, then you obviously don't trust the owner? What about normal websites and blogs - if they want to turn it off one day, you can't stop them...
There have been numerous historical cases where, for whatever the root cause, an extant "owner" of a given group could no longer be trusted and a number have been destroyed entirely on whim.

This is a separate issue from the situation when a service provider goes out of business and most, if they are not "shady," will give more than adequate warning of an impending closure to allow those using the service to find substitutes.

In the example you give where a group is quite specifically for the use of some business or organization I would hope that the business or organization would be the group owner and that someone currently employed by said business would be delegated as what gets called the group owner here.  If that person resigns, retires, or dies then the organization would name the next delegated person to assume the role.   Hence the reason I strongly favor the concept and terminology of "group administrator."

There have been a very great many lists/groups "orphaned" out there when a parent entity itself ceases to exist, and you can still find them.  While there have been occasions where a full deletion has been done by and large these things continue their existence either as pure "zombie groups" where any existing members can access them (and many do - some have even effectively become "former employees of X" type groups - and if the owner/administrator kept interest new members fitting the "former employees" or "former members of organization X" can and do still join.)

Usenet, which still exists and parts of which are going strong, is the best example of what becomes of groups over the long term.

In the end, though, if a group has public archives it can never disappear entirely anyway.  One need only visit the Wayback Machine internet archive for clear evidence of that.  This is why I have spent years trying to tell people that anything you ever post in public, or that you have sent to someone that they might post in public, is, for all practical intents and purposes, in the public domain.  Things that enter the public areas of the internet can never be retracted.  The bell cannot be unrung.
 
--
Brian  - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1703, Build 15063  (dot level on request - it changes too often to keep in signature)
I worry a lot. . . I worry that no matter how cynical you become it's never enough to keep up.
    ~ Trudy, in Jane Wagner's 
            Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe


moderated Re: Dealing with Terms of Service violations/other complaints

 

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 06:52 am, James Milligan wrote:
If there are two or more owners on a group
I think it's always been a lack that a separate category for "founder" does not exist. I would create that category. Only the founder would be able to delete a group.
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Dealing with Terms of Service violations/other complaints

Tony Moody
 

Yes Noel,
Not quite what you envisage but close enough.

My active group is a village news and info subscription setup, so I doubt very much that there is anything that could be considered copyright. In effect the whole thing belongs to us the villagers and without their contributions the group would not exist: I did start the free manual email list 12 years ago and have built, run and improved the service. The small membership subscriptions pay for the web-site accounts and for the phone, adsl services. I do not charge for my time or effort.  I contribute very little to the copy. I do have people who I can phone for moderation purposes, but it is mostly my baby. For the past year or so the errm trouble makers have drifted away to harrass each other on facebook and whatsup. There is only one rule "Be Nice" .

I have called for formal moderators/policy helpers, and approached a few people; but everyone is so busy !. Or they are luddites. Both valid, so be it.

Another brainstorm kind of thought is that it would be a good idea to have a policy statement in place if owner becomes absent. A sort of Will. This could be in the TOS or privately with Groups.io or with the Owners executors.

OK,
Tony



On 25 Aug 2017 at 10:21, Noel Leaver wrote about :
Subject : Re: [beta] Dealing with Terms of Se

> If there are two Owners then it would need both of them to press the red button and kill the
group.

I think that is a good idea, it provides a way a group can be protected against one person deleting it. More generally, all owners should have to agree.

> Or That the remaining Moderators have a vote to put the group on hold, change its name and
keep the archive etc and start again, or to kill the group.

It is likely the group contains material considered copyright by the owner, so they would be able to object to you doing this (and if you are in this situation it seems quite likely they would).

Noel


  


moderated Re: Dealing with Terms of Service violations/other complaints

James Milligan
 

It's worth remembering that not all groups are 'standalone'. The group I'm moving over to here shortly is a benefit members have when they join an organisation. Clearly, there are implications if 'anyone' can take over a group, and in this case the group is owned by the organisation (which in turn is effectively owned by the members, so we go full circle in this specific case, but you can see where I'm going with this for normal businesses and so on).

If there's only one owner, regardless of whether it's free or paid, they're the owner of the group, ultimately it's their call what they do with it. If your community(ies) don't want that to happen, then you obviously don't trust the owner? What about normal websites and blogs - if they want to turn it off one day, you can't stop them...

If there are two or more owners on a group, it would be nice to have a two-step verification here, perhaps an email to the second owner that needs to be responded to within X amount of time, otherwise the action is carried out. If the two owners are in disagreement, then it's probably one for support to sort out (sorry Mark!)

Ultimately you need to weigh up how much you trust the group owners, it makes sense to have at least two for a whole raft of reasons - both mundane like normal admin, and more extreme like loss of life.


moderated Re: OWNED or ADMINISTERED #suggestion

 

I just want to add that, in brief, OWNED vrs ADMINISTERED is an issue of CONTROL, and that different levels of control are needed or wanted for different situations. Other than dealing with issues of control, there would be no differences in the operation or performance of OWNED or ADMINISTERED groups.

Everett

14681 - 14700 of 29085