From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 24 Dec 1992 01:16:05 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

Chuck Karish one again induces me to use more bandwidth 
on this one:

>>You're skating on thin ice here.  All the evidence points to it being 
>>fairly restrictive, including what I've been able to
>>learn from WELL admins thus far.
>
>Steve, you don't seem to learn from experience.  

Another gratuitous remark.  You're not learning real fast yourself.

>Mike commented
>about the way the policy is presented to new users, and you
>responded in terms of the way that policy seems to you to be
>enforced.  

Simply put, the policy based on their admin's statments is
that (1) celebrity status has been a good enough reason
in the past (2) a simple preference for pseudonymity, based
on a reluctance to contribute to the conversations under
one's real name, is NOT an acceptable reason, and (3) they will 
listen to other reasons, but they must be substantial.

Because of (2) this policy IMO qualifies as "fairly restrictive",
since the most common reason for wanting pseudonymity that
I have encountered is excluded.  

>>Why do you believe the users I've talked to are not representative?
>
>Because the issue doesn't show up on the WELL or in
>face-to-face conversations with WELL users?

For me it has shown up in face-to-face conversations
with WELL users.  

>If you don't want to be accused of speculating about
>WELL policies, there's one more thing you could have done:
>called up the current WELL management, not ex-managers who
>happen to be handy, and ask about the policies that
>interest you.  

Done this.

>You have, in fact, criticized WELL policies
>on the basis of your own projections of what they might be
>and said "How could I have known?" when you were called on
>it.

Chuck, here  you are fantasizing.  What I've learned from contacting 
their admin completely correlates with the assessment I had when I 
started this thread.  No contradicting evidence has surfaced.

At this point the only way I could learn more about the policy is to go
through the motions of trying to get a pseudonymous account there, and
since I don't *want* such an account I can't be expectted to do this
just to meet your standards of proof.

>If you don't want to be accused of speculating about 
>whether the style of user interaction is different on
>the WELL from what you see on USENET, do as Mike suggested
>and log in there.

(?) The difference in style between the two systems hasn't
been an issue in this thread -- why do you bring it up
out of nowhere?  You really seem to have trouble staying on topic.

>Steve, you did more than ask for information.  You expressed
>your conclusions in terms that seemed to be critical of
>WELL policies and supported your conclusions using arguments
>that were quite difficult to follow.

I'll admit some of my comments have been pointed, perhaps 
purposefully so as to get the discussion going, but I intended to stop
short of being "critical".  If I failed at this it's
because I underestimated just how defensive some of the
readers on this newsgroup would be.

>>I did NOT say the WELL had "flaws".  Don't put words in my mouth.
>
>You repeatedly said that WELL policies were "inconsistent",
>in a context that I took to indicate that you consider
>this lack of consistency to be a flaw.  

I can understand your interpretation of my statements.  The lack of
consistency, or perhaps let's just say the vagueness of this policy
does not seem to be a flaw in practice, more of just a compromise on a
privacy issue to achieve a perceived benefit to the quality of the
conferences.  I think it's unfortunate, but not an outright "flaw".

Steve
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:8260 alt.amateur-comp:448 soc.culture.usa:9431 alt.activism:19990