I (or more accuratelly the moderators) have been asked to make an "immediate"
decision on the matter of the status database. The choices presented are
"kill it" or "lock it down". I'm not reading the list presently; hopefully
these terms mean something to those who have an interest in this issue (and
hopefully this post will not look too awkwardly out of context :-))

First, let me say that I had nothing to do with the creation of this thing,
and thus am hesitent to walk into the resulting morass. Why me? Not really
fair to me and the moderators to be asked to make a decision that will piss
half the people off (those who's position is decided against). We're
innocent on this one; the moderators' jobs are to deal with list trolls, spam,
and off-topic/offensive content, not make gamemaster decisions -- i.e.,
desisions that impose the way the game is played on the list.

I've thought about this a great deal. Some observations come to mind --

* I've been told "[t]he vast majority is silent". If so, I question why it is
so hot? If only a few care, why all the hubbub. Lets revisit it in
a year or two, when more people care. I mean, letterboxing is gone since 1859
without this, since 1989 or earlier in North America without this, and since
1998 on this list. Need we decide this week? Jay has made an excellent
argument for deferring this decision a while. I'd like to do that -- I _will_
decide further on, but feel free to maintain the status quo if you feel
deferral would be a better idea.

* If I decide to kill it -- this is a form of censorship, and a form of
gamemastering, dictating the way the game is played. Those who "really like"
it will hate _me_, an innocent in the debate. I don't want to be hated.

* If I decide to lock it down -- I am sanctioning it, and those who "hate"
it will hate _me_, an innocent in the debate. I don't want to be hated.
Moreover, locking it down would further erode the rights of those who do
not wish their boxes in the database -- now they can remove them, under
the lock it down idea, they must pester a single db volunteer or one of
the volunteer moderators (more work) to get their thing out of there.
(I'll admit that I'm not too keen on the present setup where those who
don't want their boxes there have to do the work of monitoring a db they
are uninterested in, then do the work of removal).

Now, its not the moderator's job to protect the rights of other letterboxers
in the game of letterboxing, as much as they may empathize with the feeling of
trespass on these rights. (We would hope that simple common courtesy would
mitigate trespass, but I'm told boxes are being added against the wishes of
their creators). Moreover, we lock down posts that could contain
the same content on the e-mail portion of the list, isn't the db simply
another medium? Shouldn't the same protections be extended to it? Yes,
they should, despite the fact that one is fermentation, and one is
distillation. In other words, not locking down is akin to letting Joe Schmoe
delete any _message_ on the list. But this is a very legalistic reading
of things, one is stronger that the other (this is not a black and white
world).

OTOH, it is the moderator's job to uphold the list charter
(http://www.letterboxing.org/list.html). One of the violations is
"spoilers" -- spoilers are defined differently than percisely what the
database contains, but that does not mean the database content does
not contain spoilers. Of course it does. We're volunteers, not lawyers,
and can't help if the charter defintion of spoilers doesn't cover all
sorts of spoilers. The simple fact of person X indicating they found
box Y is a spoiler. Thus nuking this thing is perfectly justifiable
under the no spoilers clause, tho a more appropriate response would be
to nuke only those boxes in the db where spoilers matter (this is not a
black and white world). Who judges what is a spoiler? Moderators? Do
we want this?

So, the right thing for me to do is to not decide this. Hated either way.
I really don't want to, and don't feel I should be put in a position to.

OTOH, if I don't decide, I'll prolly be hated by everyone (or the vast
minority who care) for being wishy washy. So, knowing I will be hated by
someone no matter what I do or don't do, I will decide what I feel is
right and represents an opt-in compromise --

The status database can be locked down, provided permission from the box
creator is obtained before listing that individual's boxes in the db, or
provided the box is listed as abandoned, unowned, has a foster parent,
etc.

If this is unworkable, that is not my problem. Anything is workable with
enough time and money. I'm not going to sanction something that further
erodes the rights of those who do not wish to participate in this thing.
Nor am I going to nuke the freedom of those who do want to use this list
tool, provided others' rights are respected. Sometimes protecting others'
rights is alot of work if you want to make progress. Just try building
a smokestack factory near a subdivision. Under this decision, those who
like it can use it, those who don't can ignore it, and who better to decide
whether they think the fields in this database will spoil their boxes than
the creator? Also, under this decision, those who are offended by this
idea and are resorting to wanton removal of records have no reason to be
any longer, they can rest assured that all boxes are there by permission
and people are playing the game as they wish to play it.

I appreciate your understanding in the position I've been put in to
decide an apparently contentious issue under an immediate time frame.
If you must hate me, an innocent in this debate, please do so in silence.
Life is too short to spend more time on this.

TIA
Randy
List Manager