|
Grex > Coop11 > #173: Motion to make scribble permanently erase response text | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 255 responses total. |
jmsaul
|
|
response 207 of 255:
| 
Jun 27 15:15 UTC 2000 |
How nice for you.
|
scott
|
|
response 208 of 255:
|
Jun 27 16:43 UTC 2000 |
I don't think it's that important an issue. As it is, I voted for
depermitting the log.
|
flem
|
|
response 209 of 255:
|
Jun 27 17:50 UTC 2000 |
Having, out of some masochistic sense of duty, waded through (most
of) the enormous amounts of exaggerated, repetitive, antagonistic
"discussion" of this issue, I'm not at all surprised at the low voter
turnout. The more I read about it, the less important and interesting
it seems. I could barely muster the energy to vote, and I wouldn't be
at all surprised if the majority of members have long since forgotten
all the items in which this issue is discussed. I don't blame them.
|
janc
|
|
response 210 of 255:
|
Jun 27 17:51 UTC 2000 |
The fact that we haven't actually ever had a major problem with the
policy may cause some people to feel that it isn't all that important an
issue. (I don't agree.)
The "non-member vote" isn't necessarily all that meaningful. Anyone
could create 100 non-member accounts and cast 100 non-member votes. If
we actually gave them any weight, people would probably do this. As we
don't, they probably don't.
Why count non-member votes at all? I can't think of any strong reasons
not to, so what the heck.
We need to think of another approach to the problem.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 211 of 255:
|
Jun 27 17:56 UTC 2000 |
(For the record, I didn't create any non-member accounts for voting purposes.
I did vote for the proposal from my jmsaul account.)
|
other
|
|
response 212 of 255:
|
Jun 27 18:31 UTC 2000 |
but surely, Joe, you must understand the practical reasoning behind only
allowing the votes of validated accounts to determine the policies and paths
of *any* organization, especially one so entirely run by this democratic
process?
|
dpc
|
|
response 213 of 255:
|
Jun 27 19:03 UTC 2000 |
I'm disappointed in the outcome. I'm nonplussed about why the non-member
vote went the opposite of the member vote. I expect members tend to
be longer-term users than non-members. Is that what we saw here?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 214 of 255:
|
Jun 27 19:57 UTC 2000 |
Re #212: Again: I am not arguing with Grex's policy of only permitting
members to vote. I am saying that the policy of refusing to allow
people to remove text they enter from public view is wrong.
|
carson
|
|
response 215 of 255:
|
Jun 27 20:25 UTC 2000 |
re #201: (touche, you brother of your own father. mebbe you
should re-read your own post too. and take some English classes.)
|
jep
|
|
response 216 of 255:
|
Jun 27 20:25 UTC 2000 |
The voters, who know how to read the /bbs/censored log, appear to be
enjoying the feeling of seeing something others think is no longer
public. It's voyeurism.
Maybe some member can propose a vote to provide a back-door for reading
e-mail, too. Maybe it already exists. If it does, one wouldn't be able
to trust the membership to vote to correct it.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 217 of 255:
|
Jun 27 20:36 UTC 2000 |
Re: #189: I wouldn't put a lot of effort into a proposal, and possibly
stir people up about it, that couldn't be implemented: We don't have
the ability to change the source code of picospan. Perhaps picospan is
configurable to entirely disable a command. But changing how a
particular command operates (e.g. put up a 1-time-only warning) doesn't
sound like something we can do, even if backtalk were modifiable.
I'll be happy for someone to tell me I'm mistaken about picospan...
|
jp2
|
|
response 218 of 255:
|
Jun 27 20:56 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 219 of 255:
|
Jun 27 21:22 UTC 2000 |
Man, I might be willing to buy an election to make *that* happen.
Re #216: Too right.
|
gypsi
|
|
response 220 of 255:
|
Jun 27 22:55 UTC 2000 |
I'm a long-term user (five years or so), but I'm not a member. This is
mostly in part to my never having the extra $60 when I think about mailing
it in, and I'm horrible at sending $6 monthly. ;-) I could probably do it
when I start going to grexwalks.
Oh hell...keep forgetting aruba doesn't do treasury anymore... Feh.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 221 of 255:
|
Jun 27 23:10 UTC 2000 |
Out of curiosity, how long does someone have to be a member in order to vote
on or introduce a proposal like this? Is it immediate, or is it the
three-month deal that applies to elections? I assume it's immediate, or else
the people who told me I should have joined so I could cast my vote were on
drugs.
|
kaplan
|
|
response 222 of 255:
|
Jun 28 00:54 UTC 2000 |
If you had paid for at least 3 months before the polls closed ($18),
your vote would have counted. You don't have to wait the 3 months
between pay time and vote time.
|
aruba
|
|
response 223 of 255:
|
Jun 28 01:40 UTC 2000 |
Right. Sarah - if you get money to me, I'll see that it gets to flem.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 224 of 255:
|
Jun 28 01:48 UTC 2000 |
So, assuming no paying member who voted in the last election changes their
vote, the net cost to make you collectively see sense on this issue would
be $108. That's pretty cheap.
(To steal a phrase, we've already established what Grex is; we're just
negotiating the price.)
Have you thought out the implications of your "perfect democracy" where
voting rights are available for $18 a head? And if you have, why in the
name of whatever you hold dear are you provoking people who are already
pissed at you to think about it?
|
gypsi
|
|
response 225 of 255:
|
Jun 28 02:32 UTC 2000 |
Mark - yeah, but I don't want to put that responsibility on you just 'cause
I keep forgetting to mail a check every month. =)
|
aruba
|
|
response 226 of 255:
|
Jun 28 02:44 UTC 2000 |
Speaking for myself, I've thought about it a lot. Anyone is welcome to
come to Grex and become a member. There's no question that that means our
system is fragile - if anyone were sufficiently motivated, they could find
a way to take over the system.
We operate on the good will of our users. And, frankly, there isn't a lot
to gain in taking over Grex. Because Grex *is* its users, and if someone
were to take it over and chase away the users, what would be left?
Joe, I've worked very hard for Grex, and I care about it a lot. I care
about it enough to be very sad at the prospect of something like a
takeover happening. But despite that I still believe in the democratic
system we have. Because if we didn't have that, it wouldn't be the same
place.
|
aruba
|
|
response 227 of 255:
|
Jun 28 02:45 UTC 2000 |
gypsi slipped in - #226 was a response to #224.
Sarah - well, whatever it takes. :)
|
spooked
|
|
response 228 of 255:
|
Jun 28 03:21 UTC 2000 |
Woohoo - my vote, and sentiment, was backed up (:
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 229 of 255:
|
Jun 28 03:55 UTC 2000 |
Enjoy reading that stuff, eh?
Re #226: I think it's very noble. It just probably isn't a good idea to
encourage people to think in terms of buying votes. I admit I'm
kind of surprised as to how easy it would be.
|
md
|
|
response 230 of 255:
|
Jun 28 04:03 UTC 2000 |
You could've bought mine, no prob.
[Some anonymous person used to keep on buying me mnet
memberships (or patronships or whatever) and I could
never find out who it was or why they did it. In fact,
I was starting to think it was some fluke in the
accounting system, but then mnet turned to mush and I
left and never pursued the matter. Anyway, the only
thing I ever used it for was dialing in on the patron
lines, but telnet and the web interface have rendered
that moot.]
|
janc
|
|
response 231 of 255:
|
Jun 28 04:08 UTC 2000 |
I'm interested in hearing what those who voted down this motion would
like to see instead - status quo? some other policy?
|