|
Grex > Coop11 > #160: Scribbling and Expurgating: Is it Effective? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 14 new of 128 responses total. |
pfv
|
|
response 115 of 128:
| 
May 29 21:19 UTC 2000 |
I trust the staff with my email. I would absolutely trust them
with a depermed, censored item/response.
To my knowledge, never - even when I have been a bit abrasive -
have staff here, on grex, EVER abused their powers or taken
great offensive to what I've posted or done - and I have, on
occasion, pulled real boners that staff has privately explained
to me.
If you can't trust root, then you need a new system. It's that
simple.
I would add also that scribbled/expurgated items/responses, much
like accounts people miscreate, might become something that you
would ASK the staff to quietly thermonuke completely and totally.
(I suspect a simple script could be created that would do this
with no effort beyond invocation, and that staff/root might just
process such requests in a batch).
Time to treat the users as Adults, and accept that roots *are*
godlike. AND, while you are at it, realize that folks CAN and DO
make mistakes - it's normal, natural & here to stay. HOWEVER, even
if the borg WANT and THINK the sun rises in the west, they have to
acknowledge root, mistakes, users and Reality (what a concept).
P.S. and BTW: even ROOT can make an occasional mistake. This is
why their "empowerment" can be such a dilemma, and I suspect
even marcus and janc would admit they try to be careful in what
they do. Perhaps even to the extent of doing a backup-backup
before something radical.
|
remmers
|
|
response 116 of 128:
|
May 29 21:48 UTC 2000 |
Re resp:114 - Well, scg and I are both staff, and staff folks
are supposed to log actions they take as root. If it was logged
but happened a while ago, it's possible I've forgotten about it,
but if it was recent, I think I'd remember.
|
scg
|
|
response 117 of 128:
|
May 30 05:08 UTC 2000 |
I, on the other hand, am so oblivious to the Grex staff communications
channels at this point that I am very unlikely to notice minor staff actions
unless they're pointed out to me.
|
gypsi
|
|
response 118 of 128:
|
May 30 07:35 UTC 2000 |
Ah...okay. I see what you meant now.
|
mary
|
|
response 119 of 128:
|
May 30 10:48 UTC 2000 |
Steve, is editing for content a "minor staff action"?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 120 of 128:
|
May 30 14:25 UTC 2000 |
I wouldn't think so.
|
scg
|
|
response 121 of 128:
|
May 30 19:39 UTC 2000 |
re 119:
From the perspective of how oblivious I am to staff actions, it would
be a minor staff action unless it generated a huge amount of e-mail, with a
very noticable subject line. The rest of you are free to guage the importance
of things on different criteria than how noticable they are in my mailbox,
of course.
|
i
|
|
response 122 of 128:
|
May 31 01:56 UTC 2000 |
My impression is that grex's root-level staff members (scg & most of the
rest who speak as staff here) face more staff work than they can even
dream about getting done every time they log onto grex, and much of that
work presents itself as e-mail. In such circumstances, i find it very
easy to see how anything that stafferx doesn't *have* to take action on
is split-second-classified as "minor" in stafferx's mind.
|
spooked
|
|
response 123 of 128:
|
May 31 03:47 UTC 2000 |
Yes, very well said i (:
|
davel
|
|
response 124 of 128:
|
May 31 21:01 UTC 2000 |
Um, yes, Walter, I'm in complete agreement. Just to pick a nit, note that
cfadm is the owner of /bbs/censored, so you have every bit as much power in
regard to it as any root on grex.
Personally, I don't know anyone on staff who'd view editing responses (whether
in an item or in /bbs/censored) for content as a minor matter - except in the
trivial kind of senses already referred to (by Steve & Walter). A couple of
the newer staff people I don't actually know, but I think I know enough about
how staff works to feel quite sure it goes for them as well.
I'd be pretty surprised if Mary (who asked the question in #119) is in any
real doubt, either - I'd say she was concerned about Steve's wording rather
than his reliability on this. (She may, of course, squash me flat on this
if I'm wrong. Mary?)
|
mary
|
|
response 125 of 128:
|
May 31 23:28 UTC 2000 |
Grex staff are hard working volunteers with good hearts and I'd suspect
they all tend to agree that using root power to censor is not a good
practice. But I'd also suspect there is some room for interpretation when
push comes to shove. Any action of this type deserves to be shared in the
"What I Did" item, in the staff conference, so that there can be some
oversight and peer review of such actions. I guess we are still waiting
to hear what this specific instance is about. We may be waiting for some
time. ;-)
|
spooked
|
|
response 126 of 128:
|
Jun 1 00:07 UTC 2000 |
I can quite confidently speak on behalf of my colleagues in saying that
we, as 'root', are not interested (either out of personal satisfaction or
ethical responsibilities) in censoring of any kind in bbs - and even if we
were, we just don't have the time for it to be practical!
|
janc
|
|
response 127 of 128:
|
Jun 2 03:50 UTC 2000 |
The incident I was refering to: Item 38, response 87 was scribbled by
hhsrat, apparantly after saying something inappropriate. I interpreted
Steve Gibbard's response 94 as saying that he had editted the censored
log. Maybe that's not what happened.
|
scg
|
|
response 128 of 128:
|
Jun 2 04:40 UTC 2000 |
No, response 94 there was in response to response 92, which referred to an
incident on M-Net where somebody was supposedly protected by the unreadable
censored file. I did not edit hhsrat's response out of the censored file.
If nobody else has, I assume it's still there.
|