|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 170 responses total. |
keesan
|
|
response 114 of 170:
| 
Jan 9 19:56 UTC 2004 |
Can't mnetters still parody Valerie's new online baby diary? They just can't
make comments in it.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 115 of 170:
|
Jan 9 20:20 UTC 2004 |
That would be against the principles of the parody conference. We
parody what happens on grex. We're not really interested in what they
post outside of grex.
|
cross
|
|
response 116 of 170:
|
Jan 9 21:57 UTC 2004 |
Regarding #102; I'm sorry, then it's a gross misunderstanding on my part.
btw- for reference, I was drawing from this, which you did write, among
other comments:
> - If you carry that argument to completion, then that gives us a world
> where nobody ever exposes themselves in public. Nobody writes an
> autobiography, or even a novel based on their intimate experiences,
> unless their goal is to set themselves forth as a subject for
> derision. I do not believe that that would be a desirable goal.
> Thus I prefer to approach the culture of attack as a negative force
> that decent people oppose, not as something to declare inevitable
> and resign yourself to.
|
naftee
|
|
response 117 of 170:
|
Jan 9 23:46 UTC 2004 |
re 106 "rocking the boat" heh. Don't disturb my coffee!
But I agree. It's hard to get the collective GreX force to make a
decision. Everyone keeps talking about what they would have done.
re 111 Yeah , xenophobia!
|
aruba
|
|
response 118 of 170:
|
Jan 10 00:44 UTC 2004 |
I agree with that quote of Jan's in #116.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 119 of 170:
|
Jan 10 01:27 UTC 2004 |
Not true. I've already addressed this on mnet, so let me say it again
here: the fact that people have been living public lives and writing
autobiographies for hundreds of years, all while subject to public
criticism and even (*gasp*) parody, shows just how silly such "if you
carry that argument to completion" assertions are. To raise the issue in
the context of a public bbs that purports to support free speech is even
more ludicrous, though of course free speech includes the right to make
demonstrably false statements.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 120 of 170:
|
Jan 10 02:15 UTC 2004 |
Let me try to craft a different point of view of "dithering over policy".
Consensus is difficult to reach when the starting coversations reveal opposite
points of view, hardened through long use, coming from participants in the
decision-making process. One of the strengths of this process is, however,
that an organization does not "lurch from side to side" if different factions
gain temporary acendancy.
We have had a workable compromise between these points of view for a number
of years. We even worked through a slight change in the policy when we
allowed staff to "close" the scribbled/expurgated log.
We all knew there were extreme differences, but we had a level of trust
between the factions that allowed Grex to function smoothly. Now the behavior
of one emotionally distraught staff member has triggered emotionally-charged
responses, with some factions trying to enflame *all* sides. The presence
of participants who are shouting of "action!" all the time makes it very
difficult for the quiet, slower process to happen.
I think Jan's idea of removing potentially harmful items from public access
while this debate went on was brilliant. I don't know what to think of
Valerie's removal of Jep's items.
What some people see as "dithering over policy" I view as sane and rational
response to try to heal a system that is used to a more civil conversation
style. Right now people are drawing lines in the sand and behaving in
defensive and hostile ways. People who normally don't behave this way are
saying things that have the tone "and I'll leave if Grex doesn't publically
adopt a policy that -I- agree with, right away".
I don't think any policy is the issue at the moment. What I see as the issue
is whether Grex has the strength and will to right itself, and try to develop
better tools to come to trust and consensus. We must assume that we have some
new, permanent participants who are disruptive and "make trouble" for our way
of doing things. If we can't find a new process that accounts for their
participation, the barbarians will indeed win the battle.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 121 of 170:
|
Jan 10 04:49 UTC 2004 |
I don't think that characterizing some of the participants in the discussion
as "barbarians" is consistent with the general intent of your response, but I
agree with the rest of it.
|
willcome
|
|
response 122 of 170:
|
Jan 10 08:41 UTC 2004 |
And, really, if you carry the analogy to its natural and earthly conclusion,
it'd be the CHRISTIANS who're fucking up Grex.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 123 of 170:
|
Jan 10 12:17 UTC 2004 |
resp:105 sho' nuff.
|
naftee
|
|
response 124 of 170:
|
Jan 10 17:05 UTC 2004 |
re 120
>People who normally don't behave this way
Well, gee golly, maybe they are behaving "hostile" now because for once, there
is something profoundly serious to get worked up about? Maybe we don't have
the time to sit around and act slowly! jep already proved this.
|
janc
|
|
response 125 of 170:
|
Jan 10 19:34 UTC 2004 |
Ah, I understood Dan to have said that I said that that kind of behavior
made community impossible. Which isn't true. M-Net has a perfectly
good community, that is much enjoyed by many people. There are limits
on what can be posted in such a community, as there are in any kind of
community. Personally I'd rather be where community standards place
limits on how nasty you can be, then where community standards place
limits on how openly you can talk about your own life. But a lot of
people seem to think the former is a horrid infringement on free speech,
while the latter is perfectly fine and only sensible.
|
mary
|
|
response 126 of 170:
|
Jan 10 21:05 UTC 2004 |
If were talking about peer pressure, I agree Jan.
But if we're talking whole item censorship or moderated conferences just
so some folks can feel more comfortable talking about putting breast milk
in their eye, then I'd say it's a bad tradeoff.
|
tod
|
|
response 127 of 170:
|
Jan 10 23:41 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 128 of 170:
|
Jan 10 23:49 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cross
|
|
response 129 of 170:
|
Jan 11 03:46 UTC 2004 |
Regarding #125; Yeah, my bad; I think I misinterpreted the point you were
trying to make.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 130 of 170:
|
Jan 11 08:47 UTC 2004 |
re126: /falls out of chair!
|
willcome
|
|
response 131 of 170:
|
Jan 11 09:26 UTC 2004 |
Rowena!
|
tod
|
|
response 132 of 170:
|
Jan 11 14:55 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
janc
|
|
response 133 of 170:
|
Jan 11 17:26 UTC 2004 |
I tend to see this a several distinct but related issues:
(1) The stuff that was posted on M-Net. I've said I thought it was
remarkably thoughtless, and that I've lost some respect for some
of the people who did that. Nobody has ever called for it to be
censored, or for the people involved to be punished. Valerie's
reaction to it is only relevant at all as a measure of it's
impact. I can see where you might disapprove of Valerie's response,
but if her response was bad, that doesn't retroactively make the
M-Net posts OK.
(2) Valerie's deletion of her baby diary items from Grex. You can
evaluate this on several levels. Was it an over-reaction? Was it
legal within Grex rules? Did she know it was illegal within Grex
rules. My opinion is no, no, and no, but I can see where others
may disagree, especially on the first one.
(3) Grex's response to Valerie's deletion of her baby diary items.
Valerie didn't leave staff because of the M-Net thing, or out of
horrible guilt for deleting her item. She had mostly just lost
patience with the being routinely raked over the coals in coop.
Valerie was the single most active staff member, mostly policing
vandals and disk hogs. She had to make a lot of judgement calls,
and periodically everyone would have a big debate in coop to see
if Valerie was the latest reincarnation of Hitler or not. The
last case was the jp2 mail spam thing, I think. Other staffers
who actually do things get hit with the same thing. That kind of
staff work isn't fun and being routinely beat up about it isn't
fun either. She'd been approaching her limit for a long time, and
this happens to be the point where she crossed it. I don't think
we need to discuss whether Valerie was justified in leaving staff.
The wonder is that she stuck it out so long after her involvement
in the Grex community had been so much reduced.
(4) The deletion of all of Valerie's postings. This is actually the
one that some people seem to hold most strongly against her,
calling her a vandal. However, this is the one action where
Valerie was 100% within her rights according to Grex rules. If
this is all that offensive to you, then maybe Grex's rules need
to be revisited.
(5) The deletion of JEP's item. This is the one instance where
Valerie knowingly violated Grex rules and acted outside of her
authority as a Grex staffer. Also of all the things deleted it
is the one where the case for deletion was the most compelling.
(6) The restoration of JEP's item. This is among the things most
useful to discuss the merits of, as this a question we need to
find a resolution to soon. I don't believe that the question of
whether or not it should be restored should depend heavily on
how you feel about (5). It would make no sense to punish JEP
for Valerie's actions.
(7) The restoration of the Baby Diary items. This is essentially
an identical question to (6), except that if you are feeling a
compelling desire to punish Valerie, this is the one you can do it
on.
Then there are a bunch of less specific questions. What should grex's
deletion policy be. How should Grex be interacting with its staff? Is
it appropriate to use member proposals to address specific cases?
I think that if you try to address all these questions as a single
question, mixing arguments on one topic with arguments on another topic,
then you get a huge unresolvable mess. If you separate them out, then
you get some questions that we can resolve, and some questions that we
don't urgently have to resolve (which doesn't mean that they aren't
worthy of discussion).
|
naftee
|
|
response 134 of 170:
|
Jan 11 20:36 UTC 2004 |
valerie would still be called a vandal, even if she hadn't deleted all her
own posts.
|
remmers
|
|
response 135 of 170:
|
Jan 12 11:30 UTC 2004 |
Re #133, point (4): Nah, no need to revisit the rules. But I'll point
out that being within one's right to do a certain thing does not make
it a good idea to do that thing, or make it wrong for people to be
annoyed that the thing was done.
|
willcome
|
|
response 136 of 170:
|
Jan 12 12:36 UTC 2004 |
Hey, that's a decent point out.
|
tod
|
|
response 137 of 170:
|
Jan 13 20:56 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
willcome
|
|
response 138 of 170:
|
Jan 13 21:32 UTC 2004 |
I like music. I really like it.
|