code restored (Re: Immoral?)

After more time for people to weigh in on the subject, the tally is roughly evenly divided on whether the code should stay hidden.

As one of the editors, a 50/50 split is certainly not enough of a mandate to get me to "edit" a node, so I have undone my temporary changes to the node.

I've submitted this to Nodes to consider so that high-level monks can vote on whether they think the code should remain. This vote is really for informational purposes only as the reputation on the node is fairly positive and so it very unlikely to be deleted (and will be restore even if that happens) and I seriously doubt there will be enough of a mandate to warrant changes by one of the editors. But I'm curious what the numbers from this informal poll will be. Think of it as a way to take a side without having to write a whole node. I apologize that lower-level monks will not be able to participate -- that is what happens when I abuse features of the site for things that they weren't intended. (:

- tye (but my friends call me "Tye")

Comment on code restored (Re: Immoral?)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: code restored (Re: Immoral?) by tye (Sage) on Jun 29, 2001 at 11:15 UTC
Soon after this my view of the (informal, unscientific) tally (involving node reputations, Nodes to consider votes, and public and private comments to me) started to shift and I now place it somewhere between 3-to-1 and 7-to-1 in favor of not removing the code. Even if the tally had ended up being close to 50/50, I would not repeat the temporary removal of viral code. Not that I regret what I did. This was "a first" in some ways and I asked before acting but acted quickly to make temporary changes that I thought were important. I think part of my motivation was tachyon's own words: "Still I am troubled by the morality of posting such code." I also have not changed my mind about seemingly innocent but working code with viral features making it easier for malware to be produced, at least as much for allowing the steps toward malware to be small enough that they are easy to justify as not immoral as for just getting the ball rolling in terms of curiosity, motivation, and a code base. Anyway, I wanted it to be clear that I won't be doing that for "dangerous" code again. I'll may well /msg the author encouraging them to change their mind, though. (: - tye (but my friends call me "Tye")	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: code restored (Re: Immoral?)
by tye (Sage) on Jun 29, 2001 at 11:15 UTC

Soon after this my view of the (informal, unscientific) tally (involving node reputations, Nodes to consider votes, and public and private comments to me) started to shift and I now place it somewhere between 3-to-1 and 7-to-1 in favor of not removing the code.

Even if the tally had ended up being close to 50/50, I would not repeat the temporary removal of viral code. Not that I regret what I did. This was "a first" in some ways and I asked before acting but acted quickly to make temporary changes that I thought were important. I think part of my motivation was tachyon's own words: "Still I am troubled by the morality of posting such code."

I also have not changed my mind about seemingly innocent but working code with viral features making it easier for malware to be produced, at least as much for allowing the steps toward malware to be small enough that they are easy to justify as not immoral as for just getting the ball rolling in terms of curiosity, motivation, and a code base.

Anyway, I wanted it to be clear that I won't be doing that for "dangerous" code again. I'll may well /msg the author encouraging them to change their mind, though. (:

tye

[reply]