Re: Server administrator & accounts on shared instances (+ToS)

-1 votes are very storong and  require reasoned defense - those are the rules of the game.
Defending them in the wiki would soon lead to havock. So if you don’t want to defend yourself,
don’t put -1. Try -0 :-)


> On 22 Feb 2015, at 18:40, Ben <ben@thatmustbe.me <mailto:ben@thatmustbe.me>> wrote:
> 
> Don't know why you emphasis it as a question. But it was also just me putting a shorter response to the story above it.  I would agree to not putting huge replies inline, thats why talk pages are linked from every user vote.
> 
> Refer back 2 lines to https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories#Report_content <https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories#Report_content>
> 
> -1. I find anything that involves reporting things to site administrators to not make sense for distributed cases. As a site owner I am also administrator so this would just tell me who is reporting me. Enterprise or larger implementations can always add report buttons in to their own user profiles. — Ben Roberts <https://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Benthatmustbeme> (talk <https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Benthatmustbeme&action=edit&redlink=1>) 05:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC) 
> 
> Honestly reporting to an administrator is just messaging a publicly listed account, with a reference to a post. 
> 
> In every implementation of reporting users in any social network I have seen, it is very important to not let the person you are reporting know where the report is from, it just creates more potential for abuse/retaliation/etc.   Thats why it doesn't make sense in this situation.  I don't think it should be part of the API.  Also, thats my opinion.  If you voted a +1 on it, I would not be having any extra control.  But I am the ONLY person yet to vote on it.

I think in the end if the API is well written that just becomes a question of defining a type of relation ( in rdfs for example ) 
and the API should remain the same.  So the work needed for this should be quite minimal - though defining a relation 
intelligently can be some work.

I agree with your point that in a distributed case administrators are not going to be that useful, and you may often
find that the administrator is the person you are already talking to. And since it is going to be more and more difficult
to tell the difference as the network grows, that relation may become more and more misleading…

So perhaps I do agree with a -0. 

> 
> There are only 3 days left to get your votes in.  If you don't want me to have any unilateral control, you should get to voting.  There are a lot of stories to cover.



> 
> Ben
> 
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 12:24 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org <mailto:perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>> wrote:
> On 02/22/2015 06:04 PM, Ben wrote:
> > Getting tired of defending -1 votes.  Just vote +1 it if you think its
> > important.  Thats the point of voting isn't it?
> Your *question* (note your use of ?) gave me impression that you may
> assume limiting our work to deployment patterns promoted by IndieWeb
> community. I think we still need to properly document this topic to
> avoid confusion in a future.
> 
> Also, even while I host only my own account as the only account, I still
> act as an admin of that server, so always we have role of server
> administrator, also in IndieWeb style deployments. It makes a lot of
> sense to me to provide means for people to report to me that they might
> find content published by me offending in some ways I simply couldn't
> foresee. Plain comments will not do the job here, since I may not keep
> up with all the possible comments and instead choose to prioritize
> notifications of someone flagging something published by me as
> inappropriate...
> 
> Evan, should I add all those replies directly under Ben's *question* on
> a wiki page? IMO it may get confusing if we start getting in longer
> conversations there...
> 
> 
> >
> > Ben
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 11:49 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <
> > perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org <mailto:perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>> wrote:
> >
> >> Ahoy o/
> >>
> >> I just noticed on User Stories page comments from Ben
> >> "-1. What server administrator? This is distributed, There may be none.
> >>  — Ben Roberts"
> >> e.g.
> >>
> >> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories#Contest_content_report <https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories#Contest_content_report>
> >>
> >>
> >> I understand that IndieWeb community focuses on specific scenario where
> >> everyone hosts one's own account. At the same time I think that here we
> >> also take into account scenarios where one instance, managed by server
> >> admin(s), provides accounts for many people. We see it out in a wild
> >> with Diaspora, Friendica, Pump.io, MediaGoblin etc.
> >>
> >> Could we clarify + document that we stay on the same page which
> >> *includes* IndieWeb style of deployments but doesn't put such constraint
> >> on everyone? Not sure where to put it on a wiki, maybe something like
> >> "Deployment Consideration" page?
> >>
> >> BTW I also included in my exprimental drafts[1][2], concept of Terms of
> >> Service, which will come relevant here and will differ a lot from what
> >> we know in ecosystem with handful of services dominating ecosystem and
> >> expecting people to actually read ToS.
> >>
> >> Cheers!
> >>
> >> [1] http://w3c-social.github.io/soc-glossary/ <http://w3c-social.github.io/soc-glossary/>
> >> [2] http://w3c-social.github.io/soc-arch/ <http://w3c-social.github.io/soc-arch/>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/