Received: from localhost ([::1]:44160 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eWyMs-0004B2-Ec; Wed, 03 Jan 2018 21:47:06 -0800 Received: from mail-ua0-f170.google.com ([209.85.217.170]:44138) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eWyML-00049g-BH for llg-members@lojban.org; Wed, 03 Jan 2018 21:46:34 -0800 Received: by mail-ua0-f170.google.com with SMTP id k4so387237ual.11 for ; Wed, 03 Jan 2018 21:46:33 -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=XoFD6B0/8pNg04hPWQmwClpzIKhCcjMr6EB2A7XZZoQ=; b=Up0/EAvyQ+EUG67mtsXlL8CF4QhuuPF4qk1Vii6/WwDHpd7RihmcU1E1JNCc7NlIa7 I+JURkNMFinpWn1AKQKLyjCHlU2MginkAzfIeFfTa3DU9qbgt7Svk+IS3WKiRE5XWR1j 9rT9YYGNofmcxXD6H4Y3FWoKTdAl//KvVoTFqPVm6+KNM0IQMGUMXug1DuAbGagK8RHj WQbhUPILI491AJ6nEVn1mytQMUt6NyI+WYn+5lQrHuqCo0obvQLpVxYy2yE4WxyL51C5 PoR9VLze2YVh30NPZATArL9zIaTXSkMs0dMOvd3OWLJZFwed1N9K/oAvOCL/EkjC7Nh0 ARMg== 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=XoFD6B0/8pNg04hPWQmwClpzIKhCcjMr6EB2A7XZZoQ=; b=NUlBRP3E7Iyv0VwAUmb522xpYcGLzzSZtddhsCef4W0G9DA+kPFdQfsfFdR8tPU/r1 7ynYqAvynsKGI6CwLzxfyrioCkHG1c8qnd0s2E5XIZDGhv0K+NMMv+je3oQ7Lp7PzmS9 SCRiAFLIYO59tfuKeyMpjHfzTQX2450g01eg3DqZFtcjTP5FngIGbA0JpaRAEq/tV8Mq 2l7+7Le6AZRZglYEazQkwlKzVVVjXs/qvl4GhGabtdVl88ajDfPcr9mAYX4iQlaiTvuC me8O2L8uOYI83q0j2x5upPRwB1wK+/1REi3wKfp+hK8U1W+G4oMtZFg2auy/ikjkvVYz LNjQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mKxtyqiSTUjXp1c53LUnzsBU5nAeIsWVZ4oOs8KgqtCCjtSjrih 7atftA255Wmi5/uN6ZM/XZ/dOioeAjc+TJxEE0k= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosleGePPhfYqPQkGCUyqctvs/Yxw8uhNC4c3D5L+DlmtzQpCwIJkBX4yQ/OoS0s6W4zwNiqCLj8GIBf3B8QLKQ= X-Received: by 10.159.54.230 with SMTP id p93mr3984957uap.69.1515044786550; Wed, 03 Jan 2018 21:46:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.79.34 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 21:46:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Alex Burka Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 00:46:06 -0500 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -0.3 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.3 X-Spam_score_int: -2 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="===============4938797070797266916==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============4938797070797266916== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c03ba62523c160561ecda61" --94eb2c03ba62523c160561ecda61 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I strongly oppose this idea. Besides being a Sisyphean task 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? 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. But whining to everyone that they aren't using a hypothetical official version is just divisive and pointless. 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 > > --94eb2c03ba62523c160561ecda61 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I strongly oppose this idea. Besides being a Sisyphean tas= k 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 you= r creative work? If LLG wants to draw a distinction between official and un= official Lojban, it should come up with a definition for official Lojban an= d some process for endorsing people who want to say their work is official.= But whining to everyone that they aren't using a hypothetical official= version is just divisive and pointless.

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.franks@gmail.com>:
Actually, I so move (officially).

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 Gle= ki's message here as moving/officially making the suggestion and this m= essage from me as the second for the motion.

On Dec 29, 2017 03:06, "Curtis Franks" <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com= > wrote:
I propose (not quite as a motion) that the LLG adopt an offic= ial policy that the LLG or some body constituted by it for such purpose sea= rch for and monitor social media or blog platforms, accounts, pages, profil= es, 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-p= romoting, or unofficial - and that such a body requests such entities to pr= ominently display a disclaimer stating that they are unofficial and not end= orsed by the LLG.

(I do not th= ink that we can enforce such requests, just make them. But having an offici= al policy about addressing them may be good and gives us some moral 'st= anding')

_________________________________________= ______
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


--94eb2c03ba62523c160561ecda61-- --===============4938797070797266916== 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 --===============4938797070797266916==--