|
Grex > Coop13 > #75: Member Initative: Restore the Murdered Items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 424 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 216 of 424:
| 
Jan 21 18:25 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 217 of 424:
|
Jan 21 18:51 UTC 2004 |
It is possible for members to defeat this proposal, and have none of its
suggestions go into effect. Just vote no.
|
aruba
|
|
response 218 of 424:
|
Jan 21 19:14 UTC 2004 |
I agree.
|
jp2
|
|
response 219 of 424:
|
Jan 21 19:31 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 220 of 424:
|
Jan 21 19:57 UTC 2004 |
There are several things embodied in this proposal. Because it is
presented as "all, or nothing", it leaves us with no way to accept the
good without also accepting the bad. In my opinion, the good it does is
not worth the bad it does.
|
jp2
|
|
response 221 of 424:
|
Jan 21 20:36 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 222 of 424:
|
Jan 21 21:17 UTC 2004 |
Unless you keep it very short and focused on just
the restoration of the deleted items I suspect this
vote won't get much support at all.
|
gull
|
|
response 223 of 424:
|
Jan 21 21:21 UTC 2004 |
I'm also not happy with section 4. I really don't like the idea of
voting to limit what I have the right to vote about later.
|
jp2
|
|
response 224 of 424:
|
Jan 21 21:21 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 225 of 424:
|
Jan 21 21:22 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 226 of 424:
|
Jan 21 22:12 UTC 2004 |
Just keep section three.
|
tod
|
|
response 227 of 424:
|
Jan 21 22:37 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 228 of 424:
|
Jan 21 23:05 UTC 2004 |
Here is all proposal #76 says:
I wish to make a user proposal that my two items recently deleted by
loginid valerie not be restored.
Since without passage of #75 I don't see anyone moving to restore jep's items
even if his proposal fails, I believe the practical outcome is this:
#75 passes and #76 passes - only valerie's items are restored
#75 passes and #76 fails - all items are restored
#75 fails - no items are restored
Can we agree to that?
|
tod
|
|
response 229 of 424:
|
Jan 21 23:31 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 230 of 424:
|
Jan 21 23:44 UTC 2004 |
If no items are restored, does this mean the content on GreX's website
regarding free speech will have to be modified? I think we should consider
that.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 231 of 424:
|
Jan 21 23:46 UTC 2004 |
Section 2 is irritating. It is unnecessary vebiage. (Section 1 is also
unnecessary vebiage, but it is not as irritating as Section 2.) Section 4
is bad policy.
|
jp2
|
|
response 232 of 424:
|
Jan 21 23:47 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 233 of 424:
|
Jan 22 00:06 UTC 2004 |
I can live with Section 5.
|
gull
|
|
response 234 of 424:
|
Jan 22 00:32 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:228: Makes sense to me. I think that's the most logical way to
approach it.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 235 of 424:
|
Jan 22 00:40 UTC 2004 |
In that case, I would hope someone makes a proposal to reinstate those items,
or else staff properly interpret a vote against jep as an implicit endorsement
to restore.
|
willcome
|
|
response 236 of 424:
|
Jan 22 00:48 UTC 2004 |
(yeah. I like 228, because, at least to me, other's proposal was
incomprehensible. did anyone else understand it? perhaps I'll try to reread
it when I'm not tired.)
|
gull
|
|
response 237 of 424:
|
Jan 22 00:50 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:235: I don't see why someone couldn't make a proposal to
reinstate them. I don't think having something happen because people
voted *down* the proposal makes sense, though, unless jep words his
proposal that way.
|
keesan
|
|
response 238 of 424:
|
Jan 22 14:07 UTC 2004 |
Can we vote whether to restore jep's items including his responses (which he
might be given time to scribble first) or without his responses or without
his responses and without the responses of anyone else who agrees not to have
their responses restored?
|
remmers
|
|
response 239 of 424:
|
Jan 22 14:38 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 240 of 424:
|
Jan 22 14:48 UTC 2004 |
I don't think that kind of fine-tuning is necessary. Should this
pass, and assuming that the items can be recovered in raw Picospan
format, I'll volunteer to do the item restoration, and will honor
anyone's request to have their own responses scribbled before the
items are returned to public view.
<donning voteadm hat...>
Proposal wording that appears in the vote program should be simply
a statement of the proposed policy and not include the rationale.
In other words, proposers don't get to advocate their proposal
while the voter is in the voting booth. This has been past
practice, and I think that it is a reasonable requirement.
The vote program text always references the associated discussion
item and recommends that people read it before voting. That's
where arguments for and against belong.
</hat>
|