Conference turris::womannotes-v1

I also support anonymous contributions, but only through the established 
channels (I agree  with  Steve's  reasoning on why the established procedure 
should be used).

- Linda

        I agree with Steve.  It is good to have a channel for anonymity,
        however there is some liability involved in anything published.
        Although I do not see any way that there might be any legal/dec-
        policy need to contact the author of the original note (234), I
        think that the channel should be there.	At this point I don't see
        any reason to make topic 234 hidden, but a policy should be set in
        place for all future topics. 


	...Karen

	 p.s.  for some reason, which I don't understand, 234.0's method of 
	 anonymity offended me.  Perhaps becuase it's not anonymous enough.
	 I'm glad I don't know anyone who belongs on that node, and I'm
	 sure glad that I don't.

    I suppose I should clarify one thing.  When I said I would likely
    have hidden the note had it appeared in H_R, the reason would be
    that the H_R moderators take personal responsibility for notes
    very seriously.  H_R has a posted rule forbidding anonymous notes
    not contributed through the appropriate channels.  Our brushes with
    danger in the past have made us more sensitive and cautious.
    
				Steve

    I prefer that anon contributions be posted thru one of the moderators,
    but am prepared to tolerate those that are posted thru anon accounts
    PROVIDED that the anon feature is not being used for malicious
    purposes.
    
    Given that the moderator posting the submission can keep her/his mouth
    shut (and if not, a new moderator is needed!) moderator-posted material
    is even more anon than if a special-purpose account is used.
    
    						=maggie

    Speaking as system mangler myself I understand the concern about
    folks creating bogus accounts. However, we have folks here at the
    center that have figured out ways to fake mail addresses without
    having to create accounts. There is always a way for those determined
    enough to find it. I support sending to the moderator and stopping
    all the guessing games, and keeping the system managers out of hot
    water. The rules for EASYnet are already a hassel, lets not give
    a reason to have more. Liesl

    re .7:
    
   >  This seems like an unenforcable rule. I will not live by it.
    
    Does this mean you will now start creating bogus accounts in open
    defiance of the request to either sign your statements honestly,
    or post anonymously through a moderator?
    
    The rule may be unenforcible, but I do not think that it is
    unreasonable. Why will you not live by it? Do you only obey rules
    that are enforcible?
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
                           

Tom, the problem is that, by submitting anonymously, you are breaking
an implied agreement you have with the moderators of this notesfile
to play by *their* rules.

You are perfectly free to create a WOMANNOTES notesfile "on your own
dime" and compete with this file for the attention/interest of the
Dec community.  In *your* file, we would have to play by *your* rules,
here, we play by theirs.

By the way, I feel there is a need for truly anonymous notes (where
not even the moderators (or personnel) can determine the author).
Such notes, however, should be labelled as such -- not submitted
by a fake name or from a bogus node -- and treated with less respect
by a moderator (who may choose to forbid them altogether).

For example, suppose I was a rapist who wanted to explain why I was
compelled to attack women.  This is certainly relevant to the purposes
of this notesfile, but I would be a fool to let anyone know who I was,
no matter how much they professed to respect my anonyminity.


Martin.

    Until a system for posting notes completely anonymously is developed
    and installed, I think it would be reasonable to ask a friend to
    post an anonymous note if you are not comfortable asking the
    moderators.
    
    Of course, that depends on the friend, your trust level, and how
    much anonymity you are seeking!

    One alternative to the problem of truely anonymous notes would be
    for the hosting system to provide a guest account that was available
    to all. Then any entry from that account could have come from anyone.
    The problem is whether the Telecomm folks would allow that. We have
    some accounts like that at the center that are used to provide mail
    distribution lists so anyone can send mail to the entire population
    of CX03. Liesl

    
    	Unfortunatly, guest accounts are worse.  In a simple notesfile
    	that is just a suggestion box, the guest account was used
    	horribly. (correct grammar ?)..anyways....There will always
    	be that hit and run incident with the notes.  Once one person
    	gets the password, many others will soon have it, and trash
    	will start appearing from the account.  I stick with having
    	Marge enter the anonymous notes (if she wants to).  As far as
    	I can see, she has done a good job of doing it so far, and has
    	not divulged any identities.  If someone enters a note and
    	has not complied with the rules of the conferece, it should
    	be deleted (read anonymous).  After all, one shouldn't enter
    	a conference, without reading the rules.
    
    
    			Mike
    

        From experience, the moderators of this file show a very good
        understanding of the realities of noting at DEC. Their ban of
        anonymous notes (which merely comes down to demanding that
        people sign any notes posted from generic accounts) has been
        quite effective in other conferences for minimizing the troubles
        caused by "hit and run" anonymous notes. As should be obvious,
        it relies quite heavily on the fact that most people are helpful
        and co�perative and will comply. Being able to be absolutely
        enforced has never been a requirement for effective rules or
        laws. 
        
        As to the question of whether moderator rules can or should be
        stricter than the policies found in the P&P manual, they
        certainly CAN and should be. First of all P&P doesn't represent
        the full body of DEC corporate policies. DEC policy is an
        intentionally vague thing. Rule #1 is "Do the right thing". DEC
        rewards this even in the face of P&P violations and punishes
        doing the wrong thing even when there is no relevant P&P policy.
        This is a fact of life at DEC and we've all seen it in action.
        
        Beyond that, *corporate* policy constitutes a very small part of
        policy at DEC. Most policies at DEC are set at much lower levels
        than corporate-wide. This, too, is a DEC policy--"Decisions are
        to be made at the lowest level possible". The policies of the
        field are different from those of Engineering which differ fron
        DIS. Beyond that groups, cost centers, departments and
        individual nodes on the net have policies. 
        
        Moderators have no choice but to apply the plocies of their
        system, of the cost center to which they belong, of their site,
        etc. etc. up the line. They are also free to make policy for
        themselves as regarding the running of their conference. These
        policies need to be in keeping with all of the policies above
        them, and especially with "Do the right thing", but the
        moderators do have corporate support for setting their own
        rules.
        
        Beyond that, it may very well be necessary for the moderator to
        set policy--policy beyond that defined from above. For instance,
        several months ago we had an incident of alleged harassment in a
        conference that I moderate. The offended party and the author of
        the offending note worked for rather remote parts of the company
        and had no common management below the VP level. The problem,
        therefore, came to the direct attention of a VP. His reaction
        was that any conference that could cause trouble like this
        should be shut down. The conference continues to exist today
        only because we were able to demonstrate that as moderators we
        had adopted and enforced a set of rules for the conference.
        
        Basically, in our neck of the woods, in order to survive a
        conference must never have any problems which come to the
        attention of "officialdom" *OR* it must have a set of rules that
        management perceieves as sufficient to make problems highly
        unlikely, and a set of people willing to say "we are responsible
        fro seeing that these rules are enforced". It is moderately
        clear that the rules by which a conference is run must be more
        specific than the rather broad policy statements found in P&P.
        
        When troubles occur in this conference, the moderators really
        *HAVE* to formulate policy to handdle them and to prevent them
        from happening again, at least assuming that continued existence
        of the conference is a goal. To date, they have done that. They
        are, at present, casting about for the best way to handle a
        couple of types of problems, but they have clearly demonstrated
        their willingness to work the issues and to take responsibility.
        
        They should be commended and supported by those of us who value
        the conference. Those who feel that the rules put forth are so
        bad as to be unacceptable should either try to convince the
        moderators off-line or put together a competing conference and
        let the net decide. (It may not, by the way. It may support
        both. There are 20000+ noters and that's enough to accomodate
        quite a bit of duplication.) 
        
        JimB. 

    re .9:
    
    Would it make any difference to you if in 1.* the word "rule" was
    replaced by "request"? 
    
    Really, that is all that the moderators can do. They ask that people
    abide by certain rules in the use of this conference. What is so
    unreasonable? 
    
    I do not think that posting anonymously itself that is the problem
    but doing so maliciously.
    
    Who are you?
    
    No, I was not addressing the problem of generic accounts and generic
    names. I was addressing your statement that you will not obey the
    rule/request about anonymous posting. Why won't you? Just because
    there is no way to enforce it?
                                                        
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Re the suggestion that some contributions may be so personal
    that even "moderated anonymity" is not adequate (the hypothetical
    "Why I am a rapist" note):
    
    	Anyone who has access to a truly anonymous mechanism could
    	use that mechanism to send the note to the moderator.  The
    	posting would then still be at the moderator's discretion,
    	and under the moderator's control, while not giving up the
    	submitter's anonymity.  Of course, the moderators would want
    	to show exceptional discretion in posting notes whose authors
    	even they didn't know.
    
    -Neil

    Is this an example of something that often happens?  If it is, can
    we work out ways to deal with it or is it essentially an immutable
    artifact of being human?
    
    Tom, you say in .18:
    
    "
>    Would it make any difference to you if in 1.* the word "rule" was
>    replaced by "request"? 

     Yes it would. Polite requests are always appreciated as opposed to
     demanded conformity.
                        
    "
    
    The word "rule" is *your* word, not mine.  I actually *did* say
    "request".  How do you suppose it got so twisted?  What's going
    on?
    
    						=maggie

    uh, Tom, I'm confused: the request you quoted and responded to in .7 is
    not the one you now say that you meant.  Could you explain?
    
    						=maggie

	 I am unable to find the note to which I thought .7 was a sequel to.
	The one I was searching for was the one stating that the offenders
	manager would be contacted by the moderators. In a previous reply I
	had asked whether anyone else remembers that note number. No one
	replied and I do not have time to do a SEARCH of the conference.
	
	 This seems to be a dead issue as all vocal (?) entries have been
	in support of the moderators policy and those who do not support 
	the moderators (if any other than myself exist) are silent. 

	 Keeping up with this conference is a challenge!

	-Tom

    Now I think I understand better, Tom.  You thought that the note
    requesting that anon entries be made via a moderator somehow had the
    same draconian penalties attached to non-compliance as had been
    proposed for guerrilla noting in the preceding note. 
    
    Sounds like you were **really** upset by that other note.
    
    						=maggie
    
    (The guerrila-noting note was deleted after the will of the community
    became clear, btw... which is why you can now no longer find it.)