|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 393 responses total. |
cross
|
|
response 179 of 393:
| 
Jan 8 02:58 UTC 2004 |
I am in complete agreement with bhoward. Well said. Very well said.
Btw- another problem with deleting quotes is the level of granularity
one goes to in doing so. If someone quotes whole paragraphs of text,
it's easy. If someone quotes a sentence, less so. If one quotes a phrase
or handful of words, it's almost impossible to excise them and remain
faithful to the other author's intent. So, what's the cutoff? This,
like restriction of freedom of speech, is one of those instances where
it's really better to do nothing instead of risking doing something wrong.
An aside: the mnet parody only grew when Valerie added to her baby
diary here. Since Valerie had already more or less moved the diary away
from grex at the time Jan discovered the parody on mnet, it was already
starting to be the case that the mnet item was dying. I think it's a
given that no one over there is going to delete anything in that item,
but it's run its course. So, I *do* have to wonder what the point of
deleting the diary here was; there was no new `fodder' to canibalize
over there, and what was there wasn't going away. So what difference
did removing the baby diary from grex make?
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 180 of 393:
|
Jan 8 03:13 UTC 2004 |
I like the idea that instead of changing Grex's flexible policy for fws, that
we have staff not be user/staff simultaneously.
I would not like to see fws "kill" power removed. In fact, if Valerie had
asked Misti to kill the items, and Misti had done so, there would have been
no violation of policy.
So, I think the only error Valerie made was in short-circuiting a process that
Misti would have done anyway.
If you want to control staff behavior, change the staff-behavior policy, not
the fw policy.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 181 of 393:
|
Jan 8 04:47 UTC 2004 |
Some day, I will try to re-read this entire item, to better connect people
with their thoughts in my mind.
For now, a few quick commments:
It's really too bad Mary never experienced Confer on MTS.
Marcus has very different ideas from Bob Parnes, and he left out some
things that Bob included when he tried to "Do Confer better than Confer".
Authors' deleting their items was, apparently, one of those things Marcus
disagreed with Bob about.
The rules, and culture, on m-net are very different than the rules
and culture on grex. It is very dangerous to try to apply m-net rules here,
just as it would be to try to apply grex rules there. It's not going to
work, and people are going to get angry if folks insist, either way.
I *know* that the cultures are different, and I'm still new to this
one (even after four years of active participation), so I tend to check
and double-check before acting. Valerie has been around a long time.
I expected her to be attuned to the culture and expectations here, and so
I'm very surprised to see the wide divergence of opinions on and memories
of tradional practices and policies.
Where I come from, authors' deleting items is accepted. I *thought*
it was here, too. I'm now discovering differently.
Live and learn. :)
|
cross
|
|
response 182 of 393:
|
Jan 8 05:07 UTC 2004 |
Joe, even outstanding staffers like Valerie can do things they may not
do otherwise when under the sway of strong emotions. I can't think of
much a mother wouldn't feel stronger about than her children.
Then again, Valerie says she did it in a calm state, and who am I to
disbelieve her?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 183 of 393:
|
Jan 8 05:21 UTC 2004 |
My real point was that even long-term members of the community have different
ideas of what the underlying philosophies and resultant policies are.
|
cross
|
|
response 184 of 393:
|
Jan 8 06:00 UTC 2004 |
Roger that, Staff Sergeant.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 185 of 393:
|
Jan 8 06:13 UTC 2004 |
<grins>
|
mary
|
|
response 186 of 393:
|
Jan 8 12:38 UTC 2004 |
I did participate on Confer, some. I'm old.
Had Misti granted Valerie's wish then we'd also be telling Misti she
erred. Some of us, at least. She's given the kill command to use for
very special occasions, like when someone comes through and drops the
same exact response in every single item in the conference. Leaving one
for discussion and nuking the rest can be seen as a courtesy. But under
no circumstance I can remember, and I've been here a while, did a FW
delete response from users for the reason that one of the participants
didn't want the discussion to exist any longer, and receive support
for those actions.
So the fact that Misti would have been part of the action doesn't
make it any more appropriate, in my opinion.
|
mary
|
|
response 187 of 393:
|
Jan 8 12:50 UTC 2004 |
There is something else that belongs in this public discussion.
Over the past day or so a number of users have written staff
asking, demanding actually, that their items be killed, in
total, too. I'm not sure of the numbers, but this idea didn't
get wide support. It was felt the subject needed more discussion
and a better sense of policy. In the interim the users could
delete anything *they had entered*.
Valerie, knowing of this lack of consensus, plunged ahead, deleting
whole items on the request of a specific. She then resigned.
I too am sorry it came to this.
|
jep
|
|
response 188 of 393:
|
Jan 8 12:59 UTC 2004 |
I wrote a long response in Backtalk, but when I posted it, it was
lost. I asked that my divorce items from a couple of years ago be
deleted, and this was done.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 189 of 393:
|
Jan 8 13:55 UTC 2004 |
And they allowed it? Were there other people's responses to these items?
|
jp2
|
|
response 190 of 393:
|
Jan 8 13:59 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
sholmes
|
|
response 191 of 393:
|
Jan 8 14:01 UTC 2004 |
They can delete in their own sweet time , it's not a paid job.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 192 of 393:
|
Jan 8 14:02 UTC 2004 |
Yes, there were other people's responses in jep's items.
Who is "they"? Did you notice Mary's response on the subject?
|
sholmes
|
|
response 193 of 393:
|
Jan 8 14:05 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 194 of 393:
|
Jan 8 14:13 UTC 2004 |
It sounds like valerie felt more strongly about people (maybe only
certain people, since the deletions appear to have been selective)
having the ability to delete whole items than she did about keeping her
position. That's her choice. I think she was an excellent staff member
right up until she decided her own opinions were more important than policy.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 195 of 393:
|
Jan 8 16:46 UTC 2004 |
> Had Misti granted Valerie's wish then we'd also be telling Misti she erred.
Some of us, at least. She's given the kill command to use for very special
occasions <
I have seen that notion here and there, and have no reason to disbelive it.
However, I would really like to so where this is *documented* policy.
I think this and similar policies should be freely accessible by all grex
users at any time, so that those who wish to can know what the rules are,
what they're getting themselves into. :-) Can someone paste in the
documented policy, or give a grex command, or a URL?
|
krj
|
|
response 196 of 393:
|
Jan 8 17:23 UTC 2004 |
Clearly the best way to read Grex in the future will be to log
everything read in BBS to your local machine, since one now has to
expect that huge chunks of the discussion will be destroyed at
any time.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 197 of 393:
|
Jan 8 17:33 UTC 2004 |
I disagree with Mary that we'd be telling Misti she erred.
As I understand Grex's policy, it's up to the people in the conference to
discuss the fw's decision. If the people in the conference can come to
consensus, that's what happens in that conference.
|
flem
|
|
response 198 of 393:
|
Jan 8 17:45 UTC 2004 |
> Valerie, knowing of this lack of consensus, plunged ahead, deleting
> whole items on the request of a specific. She then resigned.
<shocked silence>
Oh my god. I hope someone changed the root password(s).
Seriously, I feel this is a security breech on the order of a root
breakin. Shame on you, Valerie. You've spent how many years protecting
Grex from vandals, and now you're the worst vandal Grex has ever had.
|
jep
|
|
response 199 of 393:
|
Jan 8 18:16 UTC 2004 |
This morning, I tried to explain about why I asked staff to delete my
items.
As I told Valerie, it is not because I wanted to make a point or
anything like that. It's because there was a lot of stuff in those
items which could have really hurt me It was used to do so at least
once. There was stuff which could have hurt my son.
I knew I could come to regret all that stuff when I entered it, but at
the time, my state of mind was such that I just didn't care.
Eventually I came to care, but there was nothing I could do about it
any more.
Then this all happened, and it gave me the chance to have those items
removed.
I don't think, as a general rule, items should be removed, but I think
mine were a worthwhile exception. I am sure Valerie thinks hers were,
too. Obviously others are going to say the same thing.
If items are going to be restored, I hope, expect and ask that mine
will be excluded. If mine are restored, I will take such action as I
find reasonable, effective and possible to keep them from remaining or
being usable.
|
kip
|
|
response 200 of 393:
|
Jan 8 18:25 UTC 2004 |
jep, did you not read item 71 in coop? I think if you really really want to
do that, Valerie has already given you a tool.
Personally, I'm still undecided about the issue of allowing deletions, but
I must admit to feeling sympathy for Valerie's situation.
Those of you who have fun poking holes at staffers, feel free to poke away.
|
jep
|
|
response 201 of 393:
|
Jan 8 18:32 UTC 2004 |
I also wanted to discuss policy implications.
You can't go backward. There have now been circumstances under which a
root staff member will delete whole items on request from an item
enterer. It's obvious to everyone, now, that it *can* be done because
it *has*. When I asked for my items to be removed, I argued that the
precedent had already been set. Others are going to do that, too.
Overall, I think it would be better for Grex if it hadn't happened.
Personally, for myself, I am mightily relieved, though.
Please be aware, you cannot just restore all the items and have
everything be where it was a few days ago. Now that my items have been
removed, if they're restored, I will take it as a dangerous action
against me. Actions cannot be undone. The consequences exist already
for what has happened. Only new, future actions can be taken.
I think now there *has* to be some difference in policy. I think you
can't just stop after Valerie the former president and root has gotten
to do it, and then John the longtime Grexer. I think there has to be
some room for an exception when it's warranted, and some recognition
that sometimes it *is* warranted. There has to be some way to do this
without a firestorm of debate every time.
|
jep
|
|
response 202 of 393:
|
Jan 8 18:34 UTC 2004 |
re resp:200: Kip, you must have received my e-mails to staff. The
first, where I requested my items be deleted, was sent two days ago.
There was no such tool then.
|
kip
|
|
response 203 of 393:
|
Jan 8 18:48 UTC 2004 |
I did receive your email. I didn't feel qualified to respond to it as I
didn't know the policy by heart. And yes the tool is new, I'm just mentioning
it because I was under the impression you might have missed the item.
I too want to discuss the policy implications and agree that no rule exists
that doesn't merit some exception from time to time. And trying to craft a
rule to justify the past actions and moderate the new actions is a little more
difficult than I can do right now in the middle of my regular work day.
|