|
Grex > Coop13 > #111: A Proposal to Clarify Grex's Stance on Deleting Items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 235 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 165 of 235:
| 
Mar 4 02:02 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 166 of 235:
|
Mar 4 03:08 UTC 2004 |
Thank you, jp2. :)
|
jp2
|
|
response 167 of 235:
|
Mar 4 03:40 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 168 of 235:
|
Mar 4 13:59 UTC 2004 |
I'm trying to understand the amount of latitude this would give for
individual conferences to set their own policies.
For example, would it be consistent with this proposal for the Classified
Conference to have the policy that an item advertising something for sale
can be removed when the item is sold, or if the seller decides not to sell
it?
Would it be consistent for a fairwitness to set the policy that items more
than one year old could be deleted without notice, provided that the policy
is adequately publicized to the conference participants? Or could be
deleted on the request of the person who posted the item, again presuming
that the policy was adequately publicized?
I guess I'm unclear on the intent of the part that says "...an item may
be removed only if it violates the general policies of Grex or the
conference it was entered in," relative to these examples.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 169 of 235:
|
Mar 4 21:01 UTC 2004 |
#154 would seem to merely make explicity what most people (except maybe
valerie) thought already was the policy on item deletion. Since it seems not
to proport more than that, I can recommend a "yes" vote. That is, "for all
the good it will do", given that rogue fw's & staff...
|
rational
|
|
response 170 of 235:
|
Mar 4 22:56 UTC 2004 |
Stop being idiots. None of you are better than jp2.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 171 of 235:
|
Mar 5 00:08 UTC 2004 |
(I am also an exception, along with valerie. Which is why I made the
proposal.)
Yes, all of your examples would fall under "permitted removals", John,
*presuming* the conference-specific policies were promulgated in advance.
In the case of adopting a new policy, I'd leave it to the conference
participants to decide whether items should be 'grandfathered.'
|
rational
|
|
response 172 of 235:
|
Mar 5 00:19 UTC 2004 |
This is absurdly obscure for something that's public.
|
mdw
|
|
response 173 of 235:
|
Mar 7 04:14 UTC 2004 |
I voted "no" on this. I don't think it solves any real problems, and it
creates the potential for more confusion.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 174 of 235:
|
Mar 10 00:44 UTC 2004 |
I read someone say that they voted "No" on this proposal because they don't
feel it solves any real problem. I disagree; *IF* this proposal is approved,
then we will have a better idea of when items can be removed.
This will do nothing about the current controversy, but nor is it intended
to. It won't _prevent_ a future occurrence, but it will make plainer what
to do, since that which should not be removed should be restored.
|
tod
|
|
response 175 of 235:
|
Mar 10 00:55 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 176 of 235:
|
Mar 10 01:05 UTC 2004 |
There was not agreement that the material should not have been removed.
|
jp2
|
|
response 177 of 235:
|
Mar 10 01:28 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 178 of 235:
|
Mar 10 01:33 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 179 of 235:
|
Mar 10 01:37 UTC 2004 |
Valerie's actions got put up for a vote because there was no clear guidance
on what to do. This proposal would provide that guidance, should there be
another occurrence.
|
rational
|
|
response 180 of 235:
|
Mar 10 01:49 UTC 2004 |
Did you know testicles come from the same stuff as ovaries?
|
jp2
|
|
response 181 of 235:
|
Mar 10 02:06 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 182 of 235:
|
Mar 10 02:14 UTC 2004 |
At least the "status quo" would be recognised.
|
tod
|
|
response 183 of 235:
|
Mar 10 18:06 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 184 of 235:
|
Mar 10 20:36 UTC 2004 |
Really? You'd rather vote for a proposal that authors can remove items at
any time? Interesting.
Perhaps it's time to think aobut what you want and what you can get.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 185 of 235:
|
Mar 10 21:08 UTC 2004 |
> There was not agreement that the material should not have been removed.
That is absolute crap - unless you are going to claim that a couple of
nutcases unable to comprehend what everyone else acknowledged constitutes "not
agreement". I don't wish to dredge things up, but I'm not going to sit by
and let revisionist history go unchallenged. What the disagreement was about
was re: the items, wrongfully removed, should be restored. The voters spoke.
|
tod
|
|
response 186 of 235:
|
Mar 10 21:11 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 187 of 235:
|
Mar 10 21:15 UTC 2004 |
I think it ended up more SOL than SOP... ;-)
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 188 of 235:
|
Mar 10 21:25 UTC 2004 |
Sorry albaugh, from my point of view there was not AGREEMENT that the material
should not have been removed. I thought that the fairwitness had the power
to make the decision and remove the material. Valerie used her staff powers
to do something she couldn't do as a user. But I always thought that if she
had just been patient enough to ask the FW to do it, we would not have gotten
embroiled in this mess.
|
tod
|
|
response 189 of 235:
|
Mar 10 21:31 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|