Received: from [::1] (port=36186 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eXNY5-0001RZ-P9; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 00:40:21 -0800 Received: from mail-vk0-f46.google.com ([209.85.213.46]:38775) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eXNXZ-0001QW-Ix for llg-members@lojban.org; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 00:39:50 -0800 Received: by mail-vk0-f46.google.com with SMTP id l63so2776419vke.5 for ; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 00:39:49 -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=2/qTyL73ZBb5UORZxggwP2W8qc6BMoAuPbn5bYpp3LY=; b=fYE/Xx1ODUyZ1Cv/2TkGPEyXmS2ZzslPUXKX433FDYTC2qf8ckrUtQqF7bOtv5qvlv EcFAe8Q93bJo1kkWSO5ghNcr5yavsVALwNfZI4wnvdiw1Y7GNSgQsU4ixAmw/BE+bzx3 d2lX9KeyloXpmMRzCAbZepzs2b0XbxDBSqN/PQOMhkGSmYRjp9InN/FdgR1taSZoZwcX Y4ge+sbDItVxJvppuvRqaTgITQvDEfXzGuJlFQpKwV4UejYRVcux8vbt31uOHcejg1mO 5+4fFyTe/ZrSn91dbM2RNRF1zSMePD8jeF+WfaVm1P8LIp4D/oWwB/kJl5Bga5piyDMt 5BeQ== 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=2/qTyL73ZBb5UORZxggwP2W8qc6BMoAuPbn5bYpp3LY=; b=hAPDkDeOvdE/IfgjuNzvHyYtMaGhefLYoIC65TlejVMPN+E86yXTRfp46h5lRpFq0c 4HnXP+ZN7hIu4SdQOTUlx32+/o0bkZrb51Qqx3co04a7nX+KxOiMWsDpdp4NDal8wgoq JfSLMRnqYTfCImEX0YMuG23z+V3L9yv/1fgftjMay960zlBY9El/mJKRwGWokMiMAGMb adW0CuLURxvHnRbgPGvH6OdaUPcERzVjYHtzcF68Otwl+BnBUDwDXjSa2OC7I1wYggTz keb8vnhu3CxMuq/ln05S6CohyqZM47H9NJHLc/TxWYdMmhHGwn/FD/y35Cdz76cDitWo SFFg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxyteBPovhRwXpqJFiZJ/XQSE7PTr1WpUpHKR4ZsSwdh9v41Fwq+BS cW/xzC855twywhYrlkofQIwYhc5XlCndleoDGi4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosylhNEKvXgyNZr/mIKnoYrQj2HwCZcLzNqD/vRANh1hv6vaxLJ0fhcvy/dn8/VTx7J01QoBeZNQDG9eZYuzU0= X-Received: by 10.176.83.40 with SMTP id x37mr2444195uax.81.1515141582395; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 00:39:42 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.27.18 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 00:39:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.176.27.18 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 00:39:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Creative Care Services Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 03:39:41 -0500 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.0 X-Spam_score_int: -9 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="===============7328258850505171377==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============7328258850505171377== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c191516cd9e9205620363f6" --94eb2c191516cd9e9205620363f6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" We have a motion on the floor, assuming John Cowen agrees this procedure is acceptable. Curtis proposes the following motion. It has been seconded by Gleki: "It is moved 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." Discussion may continue in this thread until 12:00 noon GMT on January 9, 2018 or until I believe the discussion has run its course before then. .karis. On Jan 4, 2018 00:47, "Alex Burka" wrote: 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 > > _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --94eb2c191516cd9e9205620363f6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
We have a motion on the floor, assuming John Cowen a= grees this procedure is acceptable.

Curtis proposes the following motion. It has been seconded by G= leki:

"It is moved that the LLG adopt an official polic= y that the LLG or some body constituted by it for such purpose search for a= nd monitor social media or blog platforms, accounts, pages, profiles, group= s, 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."

Disc= ussion may continue in this thread until 12:00 noon GMT on January 9, 2018 = or until I believe the discussion has run its course before then.

.karis.=C2=A0


On Jan 4, 2018= 00:47, "Alex Burka" <dur= ka42@gmail.com> wrote:
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 an= d unofficial Lojban, it should come up with a definition for official Lojba= n and some process for endorsing people who want to say their work is offic= ial. But whining to everyone that they aren't using a hypothetical offi= cial 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 G= MT+03:00 Curtis Franks <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com>:<= br>
Actually, I so move (of= ficially).

I second your motio= n.
=C2=A0
I take it that Gleki's second still applies (since he seconded th= e wording verbatim as a motion). However, if the official recordkeeping wou= ld prefer it, one may count Gleki's message here as moving/officially m= aking the suggestion and this message 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 officia= l policy that the LLG or some body constituted by it for such purpose searc= h for and monitor social media or blog platforms, accounts, pages, profiles= , groups, communities, bots, etc. (hereafter called "entities") w= hich in any way whatsoever relate to, promote, or use Lojban or other LLG-a= dopted logical languages and which are not clearly human, personal, non-pro= moting, or unofficial - and that such a body requests such entities to prom= inently display a disclaimer stating that they are unofficial and not endor= sed by the LLG.

(I do not thin= k 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 'stan= ding')

_________________________________________= ______
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


--94eb2c191516cd9e9205620363f6-- --===============7328258850505171377== 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 --===============7328258850505171377==--