yappobiscuits wrote:As I have not yet said so...
Thanks, I'm just trying to be extra diligent. So now here is the little bit RELATED
, (but with some parts still redacted):
on IRC, some OTTers wrote:
: Follow the hamplies? Why couldn't it have been follow the flutterbees...
0213.22:43:15.00 *** justED is now known as EDD
0213.22:43:19.28 <no permission yet>
: How about follow the waterottermolpies?
: I'd be worried about the beesnakes turning around
0213.22:43:32.14 <no permission yet>
: ^^ ha ha, only slightly harder to sing too!
: fare thee well
: I just closed a redundant window
: It's harder when you try to sing the H's
: alright if you go 'amply 'amply
, I actually find it easier ^^
0213.22:44:13.63 <no permission yet>
: <personal comment>
: Cockney 'amplies
0213.22:44:30.00 <no permission yet>
: Is hamplify a word?
0213.22:44:40.90 <no permission yet>
: Ready Yappo>?
: 'amply 'amply 'amply 'amply 'amply 'amply 'amply 'amply 'amply 'amply 'amply 'amply 'apevine 'apevine
0213.22:45:06.00 <no permission yet>
: *imagines an apevine*
: Everyone has to say — schedule schedule schedule...
0213.22:45:42.00 <no permission yet>
0213.22:45:54.00 <no permission yet>
: Hi yappo!
: When you hamplify, do you take it to eleven?
Where it says "<no permission yet>", is a comment by someone who hasn't yet posted here to say that it's okay to share their IRC contributions, or indeed whether they even were on IRC, so I don't know if the IRC person using that name is really the the same person. They might be an impersonottervitssågen
And where it says "<personal comment>", that was a message mentioning another person, who is in a similar situation of having no indication of permission or identification.
R.A.Z.O.R. sounds like quite the fun place there, @lmjb1964
pelrigg wrote: One thing that's been nagging at me about not IDing folks. I seem to remember that at least twice someone on the IRC would ask for a who's-who up there on the screen and another person would go round the room and introduce each visible person (left to right, by table), but always by nickname.
So, are those entries to be eliminated per 7OIABdot mumble mumble or what?
I'd like to take out any such identifications. For example if someone typed in IRC, "mrob27 is wearing the blue shirt
" or "that's mrob27 on the right
" then I'll delete that. See the numbers at the start of the log above? Those are unique and I'm using them to tag specific lines that have to be deleted for "personal identification" reasons. I might even delete "that's ME sitting on the right
" if the person in question hasn't posted here saying it's okay to associate their OTTer username with their meatspace photo.
I believe that's the best balance between too much risk vs.
too much paranoia/caution. It involves reading through the whole IRC log, something I'll need help with. OTTers who were on IRC can PM me and you can help by reading through a part of the logs; I would only send you a portion during which you were participating, because we don't yet have enough of the permissions worked out (see below).
I already have a program that removes all the "signin" or "location" information, which often includes IP address or the internet server name that you get your internet access from. So I'll only send "stripped" logs for this purpose.
The goal of reading through the IRC logs this way is to spot personal information, of the type that need to be protected as advised by the 7 OTTers in a bar
) and broadly endorsed by others. In particular, the part that advises, "some names were revealed during the conference stream, again, do not repeat these in the thread
" So in other words make sure the IRC logs don't have anybody's real name except the few specific people who explicitly said it would be okay to have their own real name mentioned. And also, no matching up of OTTer names with contextual clues making it possible to spot who is who in the videos, until the OTTer being spoted says it's okay. (Yes, a lot of you have said it's okay and I am keeping detailed records of all relevant posts in an "evidence of permissions" textfile).
I have several people left to find out about. I think maybe 7 or so people. Probably 3 or 4 of them were associated with Bochum but were not active in the OTT (until very recently if at all) and I don't know who some of them are so I have to PM our contacts at Bochum to ask. One in particular live-blogged @Sustainabilizer
's talk so it'll probably be easy to get permission by asking @Sustainabilizer
to ask the mystery person.@SilentTimer
, I love the bluecave
background. I didn't figure out the prison idea, I just assumed it was a normal, publicly-known-and-funded disposal facility which was sarcophagucised Chernobyl-style because of rusting walls (and then later, the whole thing burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp
Readers of t1i will get a direct perception of danger in space and Time, invisible to Cuegan.
For me, this part of t1i
was like reading A.K. Dewdney's 2-dimensional fiction The Planiverse
. In it, the 3-d characters could see the 2-d world and communicate with the main character (a 2-d person) and warn him of dangers he could not see. It is a journey epic not unlike Time
in many other respects. I really liked that aspect of t1i
IS THERE ENOUGH ᓭᘖᔭᓄᐨ TO ENHANCE
THE ENTIRE CURRENT OTTER POPULATION OUT OF THE BLUECAVE?