Received: from localhost ([::1]:36754 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eXOBd-0002s5-24; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 01:21:13 -0800 Received: from mail-yw0-f173.google.com ([209.85.161.173]:42802) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eXOB6-0002r2-RG for llg-members@lojban.org; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 01:20:41 -0800 Received: by mail-yw0-f173.google.com with SMTP id z132so1540353ywd.9 for ; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 01:20:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=E/PWUCyp9faoHGjVJVAiuzCXIHXA4xMFJW3mljgm+iY=; b=NVKapokLaO+SGNtNPQ/N5AcfJrYp/ySr9cntJVQnWxdfAMWmFf3NgBehoCP6q6fALR SxQ8NI1pNNelwLvX75L6XiRd9BbXgNlHrkPWy4CIm1Y1fHqMLMJzHhnfa6pOZ4N03boN dkliBEZ1MHHT7Y+r3JDfgcKBXTiZZQ2UF+OXGHXK5CfbUvsHsE1Am5EXAb4MePhgZ9Bh YCAgSdfTaytihCYI+/jOUcIaFfjj4ISwvnx0meAK9jgUOVjp1+9rORcTxeDzoU+zXs4t kP6xe+tstemZUrbNcKEAkDSnCC9cOD8z3SrONsFKXFP24RaA7KAA9LHaNNknbQklVIit UObA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=E/PWUCyp9faoHGjVJVAiuzCXIHXA4xMFJW3mljgm+iY=; b=dsK4pgAQxSzFZJ3P5zdS5YCV9BK5JFfvcm6WW+YX+VKt7MvYy952nqdWz78bgEKmvr 3CYyGRRQJ4dNXWADLZKxn2m6mHJIEb9jgtOPNoIwm3WERJUaVNb9qlFhqBurVLHh0DaJ 69gyl+LmElrxjA0LluUI0R53o7U1CTV5kLqt8OkHRdZS6NwJBF2KwNdfhxSrOe66eioq UDXC7r+3IOkC8QvRF7MBCDTQEeRhXAsvmq9EwMFn/XuvLzuYOoPsT4uJUe0cH1sZaokO YlRu8ZZ9/pgcfT50wDhu5GvWjWDawB/zKQYbO4WqpJzQ6t/Vmvvhb+S6f7XgPdQuQKKH rkbw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJYavlpMiPxXSRQmrcd1qa5elQoGHdEEQcDEmEEYrrY8MmJ9neC W3XPg73AyWD/zK1GtALu0ALTss0EQlivJ+BzkbQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotklXB9GWK9/lCG8NTvB2H/VBRmK4musyL9hW37dzul7Rt5tXbVJN8isd7M71FRDwJnG5cB5A3D/fM1cXESzBc= X-Received: by 10.129.233.10 with SMTP id d10mr2105041ywm.213.1515144034180; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 01:20:34 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.135.9 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 01:20:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.135.9 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 01:20:33 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Curtis Franks Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 04:20:33 -0500 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.5 X-Spam_score_int: -4 X-Spam_bar: / Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Concerning Unofficial Social Media Presences X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0028157971757827368==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============0028157971757827368== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0824ee3cf0e2e5056203f5d3" --089e0824ee3cf0e2e5056203f5d3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Jan 4, 2018 12:47 AM, "Alex Burka" wrote: I strongly oppose this idea. Besides being a Sisyphean task Could we leave it to their (the body's) discretion. So, in other words, the provision would be amended so as to include discretionary powers and conditions (with the LLG having superior authority)? (This would be done by extending the last independent clause with/via a conditioning clause.) due to the nature of the Internet, why would LLG want to become known as that annoying group that pops up asking you to put disclaimers all over your creative work? Presumably, it would just be in some prominent, centralized location with at most a small notice or link included in serial posts or maybe some webpage-separated content. For blogs, Facebook Groups, and Twitter accounts, this would just be in a pinned post/tweet/entry or in the (biographical) description of the author or page or account. Wiki page probably would just have a disclaimer box at the top of the page or section. If LLG wants to draw a distinction between official and unofficial Lojban, it should come up with a definition for official Lojban and some process for endorsing people who want to say their work is official. I am in favor of this, in the abstract. But what would it concretely look like? But whining to everyone that they aren't using a hypothetical official version is just divisive and pointless. And probably demoralizing. On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > > > 2017-12-30 19:27 GMT+03:00 Curtis Franks : > >> Actually, I so move (officially). >> > > I second your motion. > > >> I take it that Gleki's second still applies (since he seconded the >> wording verbatim as a motion). However, if the official recordkeeping would >> prefer it, one may count Gleki's message here as moving/officially making >> the suggestion and this message from me as the second for the motion. >> >> On Dec 29, 2017 03:06, "Curtis Franks" wrote: >> >>> I propose (not quite as a motion) that the LLG adopt an official policy >>> that the LLG or some body constituted by it for such purpose search for and >>> monitor social media or blog platforms, accounts, pages, profiles, groups, >>> communities, bots, etc. (hereafter called "entities") which in any way >>> whatsoever relate to, promote, or use Lojban or other LLG-adopted logical >>> languages and which are not clearly human, personal, non-promoting, or >>> unofficial - and that such a body requests such entities to prominently >>> display a disclaimer stating that they are unofficial and not endorsed by >>> the LLG. >>> >>> (I do not think that we can enforce such requests, just make them. But >>> having an official policy about addressing them may be good and gives us >>> some moral 'standing') >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Llg-members mailing list >> Llg-members@lojban.org >> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --089e0824ee3cf0e2e5056203f5d3 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Jan 4, 2018 12:47 AM, "Alex Burka" <durka42@gmail.com> wrote:
I strongly oppose this idea= . Besides being a Sisyphean task

Could we leave it to their (the bod= y's) discretion. So, in other words, the provision would be amended so = as to include discretionary powers and conditions (with the LLG having supe= rior authority)?

(This w= ould be done by extending the last independent clause with/via a conditioni= ng clause.)

due to the nature of the Internet, why would LLG want to become= known as that annoying group that pops up asking you to put disclaimers al= l over your creative work?

Presumably, it would just be in some prom= inent, centralized location with at most a small notice or link included in= serial posts or maybe some webpage-separated content. For blogs, Facebook = Groups, and Twitter accounts, this would just be in a pinned post/tweet/ent= ry or in the (biographical) description of the author or page or account. W= iki page probably would just have a disclaimer box at the top of the page o= r section.

If LLG wants to draw a distinction between official and unofficia= l Lojban, it should come up with a definition for official Lojban and some = process for endorsing people who want to say their work is official.
<= /blockquote>

I am in favor of this, in the abstract. But what would it concretely look = like?

But whining to everyone that they aren't using a hypothetical offici= al version is just divisive and pointless.

And probably demoralizing= .

<= div class=3D"elided-text">

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.= is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:


2017-12-30 19:27 GMT+03:00 Curtis Franks <= curtis.w.fra= nks@gmail.com>:
Actually, I so move (officially).

<= /span>
I second your motion.
=C2=A0
I take it that Gleki's second still= applies (since he seconded the wording verbatim as a motion). However, if = the official recordkeeping would prefer it, one may count Gleki's messa= ge here as moving/officially making the suggestion and this message from me= as the second for the motion.

On Dec 29, 2017 03:06, "Curtis Fr= anks" <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com> wrote:
I propose (not quite as a motion)= that the LLG adopt an official policy that the LLG or some body constitute= d by it for such purpose search for and monitor social media or blog platfo= rms, accounts, pages, profiles, groups, communities, bots, etc. (hereafter = called "entities") which in any way whatsoever relate to, promote= , or use Lojban or other LLG-adopted logical languages and which are not cl= early human, personal, non-promoting, or unofficial - and that such a body = requests such entities to prominently display a disclaimer stating that the= y are unofficial and not endorsed by the LLG.

(I do not think that we can enforce such requests, just mak= e them. But having an official policy about addressing them may be good and= gives us some moral 'standing')

_________________________________________= ______
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@loj= ban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-= members



_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@loj= ban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-= members



_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-= members


--089e0824ee3cf0e2e5056203f5d3-- --===============0028157971757827368== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --===============0028157971757827368==--