|
460. wabbit - 9/28/1999 8:08:24 AM Soup,
CalGal was given limited access by Alistair in order to delete a series of posts by a serial ID. She no longer has access to any information other than the Movies thread which she is hosting. I will ask CalGal not to refer to you by any name other than the moniker you are using now.
109109 speaks for himself. 461. CalGal - 9/28/1999 8:30:27 AM Heavens, there's no need for you to ask me, Wabbit.
Soup, had you requested, I would instantly have stopped referring to you by anything other than a version of your current moniker. I was unaware of your objections to the use of prior monikers, and I am sorry if I have defamed your previous moniker--or your current one--in any way. 462. JayAckroyd - 9/28/1999 10:38:01 AM CG--
I gotta say that I've been confused by references to past monikers, especially monikers in that other place. It's probably a good idea, both for the reason soup's expressing and to avoid insider references, to stick to cuurrent monickers.
Yes, I know when people change monikers there will be guessing games and stuff. Aside from the point that this is yet another problem with allowing monikers at all, it's still probably best to assume that you're close to a personal info boundary when you guess at monikers. 463. JayAckroyd - 9/28/1999 10:38:43 AM or stick to currrant monikers, which will be sweeter, at least. Sorry for the typo. 465. CalGal - 9/28/1999 11:49:55 PM God damn it. It wasn't hostility that caused me to mention Soup under his previous moniker in that last post, either. It was hurry and hangover. I'm sorry. Delete the post if it's a problem.
My point was that monikers are a different issue. I would hate to have to hammer them out, but the issue of multiples makes it a problem. This is not to suggest that Soup is a multiple--just that the whole conversation bumps into that subject. 466. wabbit - 9/29/1999 1:21:07 AM #464 has been deleted.
I know that the guessing games involving monikers are ubiquitous in all discussion forums, but perhaps we can just agree to use whatever monikers people have chosen for themselves here and try to avoid referencing previous/other monikers. Many people come here with histories from other forums; let's make some effort to work around previous animosities. I'm sure there will be ample opportunity to develop new ones. 467. dusty - 9/29/1999 2:01:13 AM # 459 is still unanswered. 468. CalGal - 9/29/1999 2:09:15 AM
you're close to a personal info boundary when you guess at monikers.
Actually, I disagree with that. There is a difference between the two issues: 1) anyone requesting not to be addressed by their previous moniker, 2) pretending not to be the person behind the previous moniker.
It is my current understanding that monikers have nothing at all to do with the RoE. As a matter of politeness, I have no issue with it.
Public vs. private information is one thing. Using monikers to obscure one's online identity is a different thing entirely.
BTW, it was not hostility that caused me to refer to Soup by his previous moniker. I am lamentably bad at remembering to update my internal database pointers. This becomes extremely problematic when the Name FK of "Current Girlfriend" in the table "Brother's Personal Data" has changed. 469. wabbit - 9/29/1999 2:40:22 AM Dusty,
I can't help you with #459, Alistair will have to answer that when he returns. 470. dusty - 9/29/1999 3:21:14 AM wabbit
Thanks. I saw AC's announcement, but no reason nor discussion. I guess I'll just have to wait till he returns. I thought someone else might find it odd, but maybe it's just me. 471. dusty - 9/29/1999 3:23:32 AM Although I note that AC is unregistered, so he won't be able to see the question or respond. Any thoughts? Should I email him? 472. wabbit - 9/29/1999 7:00:55 AM hahahaha! I didn't notice that he was unregistered! I guess e-mail will be the way to go. He'll be back in about a week. 473. Nostradamus - 9/29/1999 11:58:57 AM As I recall, AC thought the unregister idea would make it easier to judge when to discontinue this thread. My hunch is that this thread will be here for a long time, but since nobody else has unregistered, what's the harm in leaving things as they are? 474. RosettaSTONE - 9/29/1999 1:58:29 PM So you are even deleting posts in the secret-cell thread? Amazing.
I came here to get you advise on promoting the mote in TT.
What do you think about sending drafted promotional emails to some TT members encouraging them to try mote? We might be able to use their posted email addresses listed when you click their moniker. 475. RosettaSTONE - 9/29/1999 2:04:06 PM you=your
Any chance to get an edit function to fix typos after you post? 476. RosettaSTONE - 9/29/1999 2:07:09 PM you=your advise
Any chance to get an edit-after-you-post tool to help people like me? 477. SoupIsGoodFood - 9/30/1999 1:27:16 AM advise=advice
idiot 478. 109109 - 9/30/1999 2:04:24 AM Rosetta
congrats! You've lured your first one over. 479. wabbit - 9/30/1999 3:39:42 AM RosettaSTONE,
The post was deleted because, as CalGal pointed out in her subsequent post, she inadvertently made the same booboo that started this discussion. She corrected and reposted in #468.
An edit function is on the wish list. Meanwhile, there is "Check for Dust."
I'm not sure about what is happening with promotion...Irv? 480. dusty - 10/1/1999 2:05:57 AM Nostradamus
My question wasn't "Why is there an Unregister option?", it was "Why is it irreversible?".
If the reasoning was to determine when a thread should be retired, then the logic is bass-ackwards. If I know that unregistering is irreversible, I'll be unlikely to unregister, even if I'm no longer interested in the subject, just on the outside chance that I might want to, someday, for some reason, return. If someone wants to get a measure of interest, allow re-registration, so that I could return if the subject revitalizes.
Furthermore, while measuring the interest might be a worthwhile goal for some sub-threads. it is inconceivable that we will exhaust all possible policy questions. (Well, inconceivable is a strong term. If an unlimited power dictator took over, I suppose policy discussions would be moot.)
I'm guessing that AC was experimenting, and hadn't thought through the implications.
While it is way down the priority list, I think it should be changed.
|
