|
Grex > Coop13 > #75: Member Initative: Restore the Murdered Items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 424 responses total. |
jep
|
|
response 120 of 424:
| 
Jan 13 04:37 UTC 2004 |
It's so easy to be principled at the expense of someone else.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 121 of 424:
|
Jan 13 04:40 UTC 2004 |
Its also very easy to lose your principles when you have to apply them to
yourself.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 122 of 424:
|
Jan 13 04:47 UTC 2004 |
I don't consider restoring the item, even without JEP's comments, "principled"
or "rational".
|
cyklone
|
|
response 123 of 424:
|
Jan 13 04:52 UTC 2004 |
I guess that doesn't speak well for you then if you can't see that other
people's posts have indpendent value above and beyond the person who
initially inspired them.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 124 of 424:
|
Jan 13 04:53 UTC 2004 |
Someone took an action they had no right to take. That action resulted in
the removal of text other people allegedly had control over. Restoring the
status quo before the illegitimate action *is* a rational remedy. It's
undoing the illicit act. That may not be a remedy you agree with, but it's
rational.
"Principled" is a value judgement about which reasonable people can disagree,
so I don't think there's any point in our arguing about it. I think that
restoring the item -- with jep's text, which is the only part of it he ever
owned, removed -- is principled. You may not.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 125 of 424:
|
Jan 13 04:58 UTC 2004 |
Cyklone slipped.
But whatever. In a sense, John was right when he said the actions could set
a precedent. The precedent, if there is one, will be that if you want an item
removed, and you can either find a staff member willing to sacrifice their
staff position, or you are a staff member, you can do it. And the items
will stay deleted, in order to protect your "rights".
|
gelinas
|
|
response 126 of 424:
|
Jan 13 05:16 UTC 2004 |
Thanks, Joe. Your first paragraph explains the rational. Don't know why I
missed that particular line of argument.
|
gull
|
|
response 127 of 424:
|
Jan 13 14:09 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 128 of 424:
|
Jan 13 14:10 UTC 2004 |
(Sorry, had a typo in the above.)
Re resp:125: I believe my proposal addresses that 'precedent' by setting
a formal policy. If your concern is future policy, restoring jep's
items is not very relevent. I'm starting to suspect, though, that the
goal of doing so is not to get some benefit for Grex, but to punish jep.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 129 of 424:
|
Jan 13 14:15 UTC 2004 |
See my comment in item #76. I don't consider it "punishment" to ask a user
to make amends to the system when that person's extreme actions in
violation of system policy harm the system and innocent users.
|
jep
|
|
response 130 of 424:
|
Jan 13 14:23 UTC 2004 |
re resp:128: Are you suggesting it's important to make sure staff
members don't sacrifice their positions to delete items, Joe? I think
that's pretty silly.
|
jep
|
|
response 131 of 424:
|
Jan 13 14:35 UTC 2004 |
re resp:128: I don't know if I'd say there's an intent to punish me for
my wrongdoing. I've very thoroughly outlined what I did,and why I did
it. Anyone who reads item:76 would, I think, have to conclude I acted
properly.
I think there's a willingness from some people, who have no interest in
Grex policy other than this issue, to make an example of me. The items
weren't being read, and so were important only to me. Deleting them
harms no one. I followed every rule and procedure that existed. But
none of that matters. There's a principle; it affects only someone
else and therefore is terrific for abstract purposes; it's got to be
defended, gosh darn it! What's a mere person or two compared to
something important like that?
|
jp2
|
|
response 132 of 424:
|
Jan 13 14:38 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 133 of 424:
|
Jan 13 14:40 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 134 of 424:
|
Jan 13 14:41 UTC 2004 |
Cyklone, what policy did jep violate? It was Valerie who deleted
the item.
|
jp2
|
|
response 135 of 424:
|
Jan 13 14:43 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
keesan
|
|
response 136 of 424:
|
Jan 13 15:25 UTC 2004 |
If JEP wants his responses to stay deleted even if the items were restored,
I would also delete my responses to be nice to him, and other people might
do the same, in which case what is left is hardly likely to be useful to
anybody else getting divorced. It would be too disjointed. I propose we
restore the responses only of people who request this specifically, if the
staff has enough time to bother with this. And put something at the beginning
of the dismembered item explaining what happened to it. Would this satisfy
everyone? How many people so far have said they wanted their responses in
JEP's items restored, even if his responses stayed gone?
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 137 of 424:
|
Jan 13 16:37 UTC 2004 |
I was going to suggest the same solution. If someone will give me a copy of
the items, I will go through and create a file that contains only the
responses of people who -ask- to have their responses posted again.
|
jp2
|
|
response 138 of 424:
|
Jan 13 16:41 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 139 of 424:
|
Jan 13 17:13 UTC 2004 |
"Rampant censorship"???
Perspective: we are talking about two items in a database of what, 5,000 or
10,000 items??
|
slynne
|
|
response 140 of 424:
|
Jan 13 17:36 UTC 2004 |
I dont think the outcome would be much different if it only those ask
to be removed are removed.
|
jp2
|
|
response 141 of 424:
|
Jan 13 17:42 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 142 of 424:
|
Jan 13 17:58 UTC 2004 |
As to my responses - I'll be taking a look at them and making the
decision as to whether they'll be censored or not.
I guess that means I'm not in the warm and fuzzy club. ;-)
|
happyboy
|
|
response 143 of 424:
|
Jan 13 18:12 UTC 2004 |
i don't want my words censored at all.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 144 of 424:
|
Jan 13 18:23 UTC 2004 |
Re #134: WHile you are technically correct, jep is complicit in the violation
when he opposes undoing the damage of the violation for his own personal
benefit. When a sloppy teller gives me extra money, I give it back.
Technically, only the teller is at fault. However, I do have a sense of
decency to do the right thing. I am asking the same of jep.
|