|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 24 new of 123 responses total. |
jmsaul
|
|
response 100 of 123:
| 
Jul 10 14:09 UTC 2000 |
Re #97: What I'm wondering about that is: why not just let them do it
themselves? Are you having the staff do it as some kind of filter,
so the staff can decide if the poster is worthy of having their text
removed? Or whether the poster's reasons are "good enough" for
Grex's staff? Why insert the staff into the loop at all?
|
aruba
|
|
response 101 of 123:
|
Jul 10 14:31 UTC 2000 |
It's a compromise, Joe, between the current system and the proposal that was
voted down.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 102 of 123:
|
Jul 10 14:35 UTC 2000 |
Sure, but I'm asking what is gained by it.
|
aruba
|
|
response 103 of 123:
|
Jul 10 14:48 UTC 2000 |
Well, hopefully, it will take care of the legal issues you raised.
|
jp2
|
|
response 104 of 123:
|
Jul 10 15:07 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 105 of 123:
|
Jul 10 15:24 UTC 2000 |
That would be Russ' proposal. Mark's is merely that, instead of deleting the
text yourself, you send email to the staff, who will delete it for you. That
proposal is kind of insulting to the user base, and could get really annoying
for the staff, but as long as the staff don't have discretion but have to
remove what they're asked to remove, would cover Grex's legal butt.
Or was the intention that staff gets to decide whether a request should be
honored or not?
|
jep
|
|
response 106 of 123:
|
Jul 10 18:45 UTC 2000 |
Oh, shucks. Joe Saul is not going to sue Grex over this policy. Not
for money, not to prove his point, and not because he's mad. Let's
stick with some simple foolishness, and not escalate it to idiocy.
Joe's one of 'us'. So am I. So are all of those who have been using
Grex or M-Net seriously for any period of time. We all know one
another. We all know none of us are interested in destroying any
conferencing systems through legal conflict. The talk of a lawsuit is
worth a good yawn, and no more.
Joe's point is that someone who isn't one of 'us' might see an
opportunity, or get that mad, and that Grex may be vulnerable if that
happens. Joe is not the enemy. Neither are remmers, russ, aruba, or
anyone else in this item.
#97 is a good temporary compromise; a workable permanent one if the
current formal policy isn't changed.
Doesn't calling for a re-vote at this point feel a little like a school
board continually repeating a request for a millage increase until they
finally get it to pass? That sort of thing annoys me. I think the
voters got the issue wrong, but that doesn't mean there ought to be more
votes until they finally get it right.
|
eeyore
|
|
response 107 of 123:
|
Jul 10 19:58 UTC 2000 |
I think that that something needs to be voted on, but not the drivel that was
offered up. So instead of everybody sitting around and arguing about it, why
doesn't somebody just write a stinking proposal?
(Yes, I know.....Meg, you said it, you write it. The answer is no. I've
never used scribble in my life, and could probably figure out how, if I really
needed to, but.....I think that somebody who has actually used it would
understand a bit better than myself, and should write it. And I'm lazy)
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 108 of 123:
|
Jul 10 20:38 UTC 2000 |
I'd repropose the original one until people come to their senses, but that's
just me.
|
pfv
|
|
response 109 of 123:
|
Jul 10 20:49 UTC 2000 |
I dunno' why anything has to be overcomplicated at ALL..
Look, you have a file that holds scribbled/erased crap.
You have STAFF you trust with the innermost perversions of your
very email.
You DEPERM the silly file so that ONLY staff can get at it.
You ONLY UNERASE/DESCRIBBGLE/REPLACE a post if the AUTHOR, in
writing, swears he boo-boo'd on.
OTHERWISE, let the damn post be gone and those that COPY the
stupid thing are liable, instead of grex. (let the original
authors lawyer request the bona-fides of the copyist from grex
staff - in writing and triplicate, already).
This "In Search of Graven Policy" jive is ludicrous and
counterproductive as hell. Now, if the Borg WANT to waste a week
phrasing some funky, uniquely-Grexian "policy" for post rights,
then fine: do it with the copious spare-time at the borgfests.
You guys don't spend THIS amount of time with the dufii that claim
they are grex-affiliated and such. You don't support OR approve of
Uselessnet, yet you keep pretending and trying to turn
grex/picospan/backtalk & policy INTO Uselessnet - what the heck is
the MATTER with you people? More to the point, how many tapes and
conf-archives are both saved and accessible going back how FAR?
This ain't uselessnet, the freepress, Detroit or A2 news, the
Congressional Journal, (this being the APPROVED & printable
material), or the NY Times.. It's a damned BBS.. Purportedly a
"community-like system". Geezus.. What are you all, the 500
year-old spinster down the street that REMEMBERS all this shit?
Lighten up a TOUCH, folks..
On another note, I didn't like making the webside anonymously
readable(/writable?) because I thought it would "dilute" the
reason for a bbs; I didn't like the BS surrounding the Parochial
Attitude of the deperming of bbs/censored; and I don't really like
the idea of picospan/BT posts TO GREX being web-available either.
Nothing in the past years has shown me I was "wrong", but the
"right" part seems to be in the eyes of the Borg/staff.. <shrug>
|
scott
|
|
response 110 of 123:
|
Jul 10 21:07 UTC 2000 |
There's a difference between "technically easy" and "good idea that we all
agree on". As of the most recent vote, we seem to agree that we don't want
the change.
|
aruba
|
|
response 111 of 123:
|
Jul 10 21:28 UTC 2000 |
Re #105: I don't think anyone on the staff wants to decide which text can be
deleted and which can't. But maybe there should be some hurdles to go
through to differentiate this proposal from the last.
|
gypsi
|
|
response 112 of 123:
|
Jul 10 21:41 UTC 2000 |
Actually, the most recent vote shows that we're still undecided. "Agreed"
would mean a unanimous vote. Just my two cents... ;-)
<birdy goes back to spectating>
|
scott
|
|
response 113 of 123:
|
Jul 10 22:53 UTC 2000 |
OK, point taken, "enough of us agreed". :)
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 114 of 123:
|
Jul 10 23:26 UTC 2000 |
Of course, the majority of your paying members didn't even vote, making
gypsi's interpretation pretty accurate. Wonder what would happen if you
proposed it again.
Incidentally, since M-Net is now open to the public again, I'll be leaving
like I said I would. I'll stick around for the next day or so in case anyone
wants to ask me something, and I'll be back if M-Net goes down again or if
Grex eventually closes that log -- but get any abuse you want me to hear in
pretty quick, or I won't see it.
|
ea
|
|
response 115 of 123:
|
Jul 11 00:29 UTC 2000 |
I think one of the really sad facts in this whole debate is that only
33 paying members actually took the time to vote. We have at least 80,
probably closer to 90 paying members, and 1/3 of them voted. I
seriously question why only 1/3 of the eligible population voted. Does
the other 2/3 have no actual interest in Grex, they just donated to see
their name recognized in the monthly treasurers report?
|
orinoco
|
|
response 116 of 123:
|
Jul 11 00:55 UTC 2000 |
Just the opposite, I'd guess. Some of us donated because we want Grex to have
the money it needs, even though we don't care one way or the other about being
able to vote. Being recognized in the treasurer's report hardly strikes me
as the sort of honor that would motivate someone with no interest in Grex to
donate.
|
scott
|
|
response 117 of 123:
|
Jul 11 00:56 UTC 2000 |
It means that 2/3 of the members decided they didn't care.
Now depending on which team you back, either they didn't think this was a very
important issue, or else they were somehow duped into not voting.
|
scott
|
|
response 118 of 123:
|
Jul 11 00:56 UTC 2000 |
(orinoco slipped in)
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 119 of 123:
|
Jul 11 01:00 UTC 2000 |
I don't think that they were duped into not voting.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 120 of 123:
|
Jul 11 03:04 UTC 2000 |
<DRIFT>
The Ann Arbor school board's procedures allow only a member who voted with
the majority to repeat a motion. Of course, their internal procedures do
not affect putting a defeated millage proposal before the voters again.
</DRIFT>
|
aruba
|
|
response 121 of 123:
|
Jul 11 03:40 UTC 2000 |
Re #115: members -v -c reports:
103 names in the voters group.
Joe - I haven't seen anyone abusing you. Good luck over there on M-Net.
|
janc
|
|
response 122 of 123:
|
Jul 11 06:02 UTC 2000 |
Bye Joe. It was nice having you around again.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 123 of 123:
|
Jul 12 02:04 UTC 2000 |
It's been real.
|