|
Grex > Coop11 > #173: Motion to make scribble permanently erase response text | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 255 responses total. |
remmers
|
|
response 174 of 255:
| 
Jun 26 05:44 UTC 2000 |
Okay, I've gotten the update I needed from Greg. Here are the
results:
33 members voted. The totals are
yes 14
no 19
The motion failed.
(On a personal note, I'm somewhat surprised by this. I had expected
the motion to pass. So much for my ability to gauge the sentiments
of the body politic.)
The unofficial non-member vote went the other way: 57 yes, 33 no.
This was less of a surprise to me.
|
gypsi
|
|
response 175 of 255:
|
Jun 26 07:43 UTC 2000 |
Exactly. Most of the people who were in favor of it aren't members.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 176 of 255:
|
Jun 26 14:18 UTC 2000 |
Guess I'll never be a member, because I won't support any system that does
this to its members. I'll be out of here permanently as soon as M-Net's back
up.
|
remmers
|
|
response 177 of 255:
|
Jun 26 14:28 UTC 2000 |
Re #175: Only about a third of the eligible voters bothered
to vote, despite extensive discussion and the fact that the
vote was well-publicized. I don't know how it would have gone
if the turnout had been larger.
Re #176: Sorry you feel that way, Joe. I don't know quite what
to say, except that it was the members themselves who determined
the outcome on this one, not the "system".
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 178 of 255:
|
Jun 26 14:36 UTC 2000 |
Doesn't matter to me. It's an unethical stance for Grex to take, in my
opinion, and I won't be part of it. I think you're right up there with
Web providers who assert ownership over their users' sites, and you should
be ashamed.
|
jep
|
|
response 179 of 255:
|
Jun 26 14:53 UTC 2000 |
I'm pretty dismayed by this vote. I agree with what seldon said about
it being unethical for Grex to keep text public when the person who
entered it tried to remove it.
At least the relevant 'help' commands for censor/scribble/expurgate/etc.
now explain that the material is left in a publicly readable place.
That's an improvement.
I'm not going to say I'll never be a Grex member, not over this issue.
Grex is not perfect, but it's worth supporting. Hopefully this issue
will be raised again in the not-distant future, and the system will be
stable enough, and the members interested enough, to get it right the
next time.
|
krj
|
|
response 180 of 255:
|
Jun 26 14:57 UTC 2000 |
(... as unethical as pre-1991 M-net, a system which I'm sure you never
would have been a part of... :) )
I'm very sorry that you have that reaction, Joe. Civilized politics
requires that one accept losses occasionally; the vote on this
was low enough and close enough that a more useful response
would be to become a voting member, and look to recruit more voting
members who share your view. I don't recall what the Grex rules
are on re-opening an issue, but I doubt the bylaws say that an issue
can never be revisted.)
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 181 of 255:
|
Jun 26 15:23 UTC 2000 |
Ken, M-Net learns and changes. That log -- and the right of users to withdraw
their own text -- has been protected for almost 10 years now. That's
about as long as Grex has been in existence.
I've had several people say "well, if you care about this, you should
become a member and pay us money so your voice will be heard". I have to
agree that's a very pragmatic thing to say, and I'll admit up front that
M-Net only lets people who have contributed at least $15 (yearly Citizen
rate) vote, but that isn't a very strong ethical position. You've now
escalated that to, in effect, "Don't leave -- just buy the next vote."
Now, I could easily do that, and I could do it even without recruiting
"shills" who would never bother to use Grex again, because there are 66
other non-paying users out there who voted for the proposal. I could do it
out of my own pocket. It's not that expensive. But it wouldn't be ethical.
And it would feel a lot like giving in to blackmail. So I won't.
|
scott
|
|
response 182 of 255:
|
Jun 26 16:14 UTC 2000 |
I'd disagree that needing to be a member to vote is "unethical". If you care
enough to contribute, you are allowed to help decide issues.
|
jp2
|
|
response 183 of 255:
|
Jun 26 16:19 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 184 of 255:
|
Jun 26 16:30 UTC 2000 |
Ken wasn't talking about "buying votes", he was talking about lobbying.
I really don't have much sympathy for anyone who says an issue is
important to him and Grex is important to him, doesn't become a member to
vote on it, and then complains that he is being oppressed by "the system".
We *are* the system. And as I said up there before the vote ended, anyone
who wants to influence policy on Grex should become a member and vote on
it.
|
janc
|
|
response 185 of 255:
|
Jun 26 18:36 UTC 2000 |
I'm not sure where to go from here. I guess we need to come up with a
different solution to the problem that can win more general acceptance.
Not sure what that would be though.
|
krj
|
|
response 186 of 255:
|
Jun 26 19:01 UTC 2000 |
I didn't mean to suggest buying votes, though rereading my text I can see
where that interpretation could be made. I'd better scribble that
response. :)
I'll guess that what was needed in this election, on behalf of this
proposal, was direct mail to the voters, to explain the issue.
I would suggest that to most Grex members who
are not grizzled Picospan veterans, the issue seemed very
obscure. Alternatively, maybe the majority of the voters
just chose to vote for the status quo. The low turnout -- about
30% -- indicates something, but I'm not sure what.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 187 of 255:
|
Jun 26 20:41 UTC 2000 |
Re #182: I never suggested that needing to be a member in order to vote
was unethical. Read my responses again.
Re #183: It's tempting on some level, but....
Re #184: At best, he was talking about me going out and convincing people
who agreed with me to buy memberships so their votes would matter.
If I *had* bought a membership so my vote would be counted, that
would have made the vote on the proposal 15-19, with it still
losing and me having sunk money into a system with a policy I
consider awful. You'd be happy, because you'd not only have my
cash but could still read /bbs/censored and snicker at people
who try to remove their text, but I'd lose money since I'd
still walk away because of the outcome of the vote.
And your policy is still unethical, no matter whether I pay Grex
money so my vote counts or not. It shouldn't matter who the
proponent of an idea is. Would you have changed your vote if I
had purchased the right to have my vote counted? Hardly.
Re #185: You've gone from telling me I should have bought the election
to telling me I should have spammed the Grex membership. Do you
really think that?
|
void
|
|
response 188 of 255:
|
Jun 26 21:14 UTC 2000 |
that's disappointing. that's very disappointing. don't look for too
many posts from me in bbs anymore.
|
mary
|
|
response 189 of 255:
|
Jun 26 22:35 UTC 2000 |
Would there be any support for doing two things - eliminating
the scribble command only leaving expurgate available and
having each user see once and only once a warning that once text
is posted it can only be hidden from casual view not totally
removed from the system?
|
krj
|
|
response 190 of 255:
|
Jun 26 23:04 UTC 2000 |
I don't know why Joe is arguing with me so much, since we are in agreement
on the fundamental point.
"Spam" is a tremendously overused word these days. In this case,
I'm talking about sending mail to the voting members of the corporation
to reach the large numbers of them of them who have not been participating
in this item. I'd expect the opposition to do likewise.
We could have an opt-out list if members are going to get prickly
about this, but such mail would *not* be Unsolicited Commercial E-mail.
Mary's proposal would be significantly worse than the status quo
and I would actively oppose it.
|
md
|
|
response 191 of 255:
|
Jun 27 00:01 UTC 2000 |
Well, I'm going to mnet, too, when it comes back up
(I mean, *if* it comes back up -- what's up with that,
anyway?), but I'll still be as active on Grex as ever.
Apart from that, I agree with Joe. I think the
celebrated Grex democracy failed this time, for once.
|
chanur
|
|
response 192 of 255:
|
Jun 27 01:15 UTC 2000 |
Well, speaking as a member who did vote, I am actually pleased with the
outcome of this. If people are going to post in a public forum, they
should be prepared to stand behind what they write. If they have a
change of heart later on, they can post a public retraction. I don't
see the problem.
As far as the "fairness" of the vote, it seems to me that there's
nothing wrong with letting members (as opposed to non-members) decide
what happens on Grex. If I live in Ypsilanti I pay Ypsilanti taxes and
vote in Ypsilanti -- not in Ann Arbor.
Chris
|
jp2
|
|
response 193 of 255:
|
Jun 27 02:57 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 194 of 255:
|
Jun 27 03:18 UTC 2000 |
I never said the vote was unfair. I said that the policy the vote upheld is
unethical. I stand by that.
And no, I don't consider Mary's suggestion to be a reasonable alternative.
But then, that doesn't matter.
|
other
|
|
response 195 of 255:
|
Jun 27 03:43 UTC 2000 |
Since when is majority rule ethical, by *any* standard?
Joe, I'm afraid the expectations you're expressing are utopian and bear little
relation to reality.
Majority rule is the process because it *works*, not because it is best.
Within the confines of a majoritarian system, Grex tries to achieve consensus,
and goes to great lengths to assure that all interested parties have the
fullest opportunity to provide their input, whether or not they care enough
to support the system financially, and thereby earn the right to participate
in the actual decision-making process.
I myself voted in the minority on this, because I see it as an appropriate
cmpromise solution to the issue. Whether or not this proposal passes is not
substantive to the value I place on Grex, but I appreciate that this is not
the case with all users.
Any decision has outcomes, and if losing the input of those who see this
proposal as vital is the outcome, then i'm sorry to lose that input, but I
cannot fault the process, nor can I ignore the result and change the policy
to suit my taste. Frankly, I think it's better that way.
|
jp2
|
|
response 196 of 255:
|
Jun 27 03:56 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 197 of 255:
|
Jun 27 04:18 UTC 2000 |
Bzzt. He mentioned Nazis. Game over. :)
|
twinkie
|
|
response 198 of 255:
|
Jun 27 04:39 UTC 2000 |
It seems rather asinine to have a "member" vote and a "non-member" vote, when
the non-members aren't taken in to consideration.
What's the point here? Trying to show that people who can pony up $5 a month
know better than people who choose not to?
|