cyklone
|
|
response 103 of 184:
|
Feb 2 22:56 UTC 2004 |
Re #86: I see know evidence that grex is in the process of determining when
it is appropriate to personal favors for favored persons. So far all I am
seeing is an adhocracy in which anyone can make a proposal and allow a vote,
no matter how ridiculous the requests. As mary correctly notes, you *are*
setting a precedent and I have not seen one substantive discussion of how this
will be treated as a precedent and whether future requests will be via the
same process.
At the very least, it seems to me the standard should be that the
"default" is that users control their own words. Certainly that has been
the general rule in the past. To create an exception to that principle
there should be some sort of criteria to be met to justify the exception.
In case ya'll haven't noticed, I have asked for good reasons to jusitify
the exceptions. I've asked jep to point me to old posts of his where his
thoughts are explained coherently. He hasn't done so. He has said it has
nothing to do with legal implications. He says he wished a similar item
was available to him. He says he doesn't want to have to explain anything
to his son. As I mentioned elsewhere, that cat is out of the bag. His son
will end up finding these coop items instead. Nor has *ANYONE* addressed
my scenario in which a drug addict, sex addict, etc. could post an
extremely helpful and informative item on addiction and then claim it
should be deleted based on jep's selfish "I don't want my son to know"
precedent. Such a precedent is incredibly damaging to grex.
And it would be nice if jep and some of his supporters could argue
honestly about this. It is not honest to say the deleted posts of others
have little or no value when jep himself wished such an item existed
before. And no one has argued for an absolute inflexible "principle".
The rules against posting credit card numbers are one example. So ditch
the red herrings and start talking about on what grounds you will
recognize exceptional requests for deleting the words of others. What
criteria should be applied? Don't kid yourselves. This is ALL about
precedent.
|