|
Grex > Oldcoop > #76: member initiative: do not restore two items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 357 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 25 of 357:
| 
Jan 9 21:33 UTC 2004 |
jp2 Im not worried about myself, I can go back and scribble my own posts in
those items if I want because I'm still here. But what about users who have
left and are no longer around? They can't defend themselves from having their
comments being newly misinterpreted. If Grex will not change current policy,
they should take all old, not-current conferences off the board. Those
conferences, like all the old coops and all the old agoras, are there for
historical purposes. There comes a point where those confs need not be ever
again altered in any way, becuase the users of those conferences most
of them are no longer around. Valerie is altering those conferences. She
was wrong in what she did because if affected others and not just her.
It is like if a person who owns the rights to a documentary film where people
are interviewed, and years later they go back and edit the film, take people's
comments out of context by removing certain content, and re-releases the film.
How is that fair to the people who originally participated in that project
for the director, years later and embittered, to go back and make them look
bad retroactively even if that wasn't the intent?
How can Grex ask people to post here in good faith if staff will not
protect the integrity of what they posted once the conference has closed
and been archived.
|
other
|
|
response 26 of 357:
|
Jan 9 21:34 UTC 2004 |
To reiterate/reinforce Jamie's most salient point, I had never heard
of the scribble log until very shortly before the proposal to close
it.
To reiterate my initial point, Richard, your concept of fairness is
utterly convoluted and serves desires you obviously have and are
ascribing to everyone else possible and it just doesn't hold up.
My comment, by the way, was in resp:12
> ===========
> #10 of 24 by (richard) on Fri Jan 9 15:35:36 2004:
>
> ...When people post to grex, they have the right to assume that
> anything they post won't be taken out of context...
> ===========
> ===========
> 20 of 24 by (richard) on Fri Jan 9 16:16:26 2004:
>
> re #17...Other, this isn't a matter of "rights"
> ===========
|
jep
|
|
response 27 of 357:
|
Jan 9 21:37 UTC 2004 |
As far as letting me scribble my responses from those items, then re-
posting the items... how would the items be restored but kept so only I
can see them, until I'm done scribbling?
Who is going to go through any responses from others which I request to
be deleted, and delete them?
If the items are restored, I will certainly begin by removing all of my
responses from them. I think I wrote about 2/3 of the responses in
those two items. I don't think the discussions will be quite the same
after I'm done.
The items are deleted now. All I am asking is that they be left
deleted.
Richard, you've brought up the issue of fairness. Is it "fair" that my
son (then age 5, now 7) be subjected to the results of whatever garbage
I posted when I was so despondent I was saying anything? Do you think
the right of Grex users to plow through old items is so great that he
should just have to live with what I posted?
Just let the items be deleted. Leave them alone. I'm really sorry for
causing problems to other people by this action, but in the case of
these two items, I am pretty sure I care more about them than everyone
else on Grex combined. I'm asking for a break from Grex. It's
completely outside of normal system policy. I'm asking for it to be
done that way anyway.
|
jp2
|
|
response 28 of 357:
|
Jan 9 21:37 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 29 of 357:
|
Jan 9 21:38 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 30 of 357:
|
Jan 9 21:53 UTC 2004 |
Other, what is convoluted about wanting the words of old users who are no
longer around to be protected. If people posted here in good faith, using
their names, and they have their words taken out of context years later when
they aren't around to defend themselves, how is that fair? Grex is on the
web, anybody can go read these old confs. Other, you have no sense of
decency if you can't see how some old user's rep could potentially be damaged
by old confs getting cut up by an embittered user.
Posting here is like if you published something in a newspaper and a magazine.
When you do that you can't take it back, because the publications are out
there. If I send a letter to the editor of a newspaper and they publish it,
I can't go back and ask them to edit the letter out of future microfilm copies
of the paper. Grex is publishing what you say, it is sending it out, making
it available on the web. Why does Grex not allow editing of posted items?
I thought it was the taking other posts "out of context" in the process
argument. I think it is unfair to allow scribbling, or editing for that
matter, of items that are so old that it is reasonable to think that affected
users might not be around to defend or clarify themselves.
That Other is called decency. Grex can't grow as a conferencing environment
if it does not show that decency, if it does not show that it will protect
its past
|
flem
|
|
response 31 of 357:
|
Jan 9 22:20 UTC 2004 |
jep wrote in #21
> I'm in better position to decide whether I
> want the items around. I don't want them around.
Frankly, jep, I don't think it's any of your business whether the item
is around. Ok, well, maybe you feel it's important to you that the item
be gone in entirety; I'm not sure why. But you don't have the right to
ask that of grex. What you can do is two things: you can scribble all
of your responses, and you can ask for help again: ask people
sympathetic to you to scribble their responses in that item themselves.
I'd be quite willing to do that if you asked nicely; I don't care about
anything I may have written in them. (I don't even really remember if I
responded, though I know I read them carefully)
I think you're going to have to get used to the fact that there are
those of us who care enough about what has happened and about doing the
right thing about it that we're not just going to let it drop without a
fight.
|
gull
|
|
response 32 of 357:
|
Jan 9 22:30 UTC 2004 |
I will vote against this proposal if it comes to a vote. I'll do this
not because of my feelings about the overall issue, but because I think
that member votes about specific users are a bad idea in general.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 33 of 357:
|
Jan 9 22:31 UTC 2004 |
If this (jep's) item went to a vote, I would vote no. I think it has to
succeed or fail based on the vote for jp2's proposal. If it never comes to
a vote, or gets voted down, then jep's proposal is not needed. If jp2's
proposal is passed, and someone on staff actually carries it out, I think that
jep will just have to deal with it, and work with staff and other posters to
scribble stuff individually, sufficiently.
richard, we have read your "proposal", rehashed several times. We understand
your point of view. We just disagree. It's not going to happen. scribble
is scribble, it's what it is, it doesn't know about date ranges, what
"oldness" means. Give it up. Forget it.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 34 of 357:
|
Jan 9 22:36 UTC 2004 |
Re: #12: >>Also, if any posts not made by the users who removed them or
requested their removal are restored, any quotes of a full sentence
or more from the properly removed text should also not be restored,
but should be replaced by something along the lines of:
[quotation removed by request of original owner/poster] <<
I totally disagree (BTW, that text is not part of any proposal, it's just
someone's opinion at this point). Quotations from another item are "hearsay".
Since the original post isn't around, no one need believe the quoter that it
is what was originally said. It has no weight. You will surely argue that
since the original item isn't around, people are just going to assume that
the quote is accurate. That is their problem for assuming that.
|
willcome
|
|
response 35 of 357:
|
Jan 9 22:57 UTC 2004 |
(WHAT do we do if both jep's and jp2's initiatives pass?)
|
jep
|
|
response 36 of 357:
|
Jan 9 23:21 UTC 2004 |
re resp:33: Jan Wolter suggested I make this proposal. Without it,
it's always possible some staff member might decide to restore my
items, or that the Board would order that done. With a member vote, he
thought, that wouldn't be a possibility.
re resp:32: I understand your misgivings. I have some of that type,
too. General system policy should be up to the Board or the users, and
specific policy should be up to the staff. I have until now been very
comfortable with leaving specific decisions up to whatever staff member
happens to make them. This time, though, it's controversial among the
staff. I hope the items never get restored, even if this initiative
fails.
re resp:31: You're writing as if you're very hostile to me, but in the
discussion item, you're seeing more and more what I did, why I did it,
and I think, why it was reasonable for me to do.
I don't want to mess up Grex. I don't want to cause problems. I don't
want to be part of a controversy. I want to be reasonable. I want the
right thing, too.
I dispute that the right thing for maintaining a policy is always the
right thing for Grex, the Board, the staff, or an individual Grexer to
do. Individual people matter, too. Feelings, concerns, they matter.
I ask you to consider that what is good for me, in this case, might be
more important that maintaining Grex's immaculate policy.
|
tod
|
|
response 37 of 357:
|
Jan 9 23:53 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
bru
|
|
response 38 of 357:
|
Jan 9 23:57 UTC 2004 |
Now that is just so silly, tod.
I support jep on this. Leave them deleted.
|
naftee
|
|
response 39 of 357:
|
Jan 10 00:07 UTC 2004 |
I'll keep this short: Undelete those items.
|
tod
|
|
response 40 of 357:
|
Jan 10 00:39 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 41 of 357:
|
Jan 10 01:12 UTC 2004 |
I think he's within his rights to delete his own comments. Deleting
other people's comments crosses the line, though.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 42 of 357:
|
Jan 10 01:15 UTC 2004 |
restore the items!
|
richard
|
|
response 43 of 357:
|
Jan 10 02:47 UTC 2004 |
Albaugh don't speak for every user on this board. I think Grex's reason for
existing is conferencing and you can't expect this place to grow if staff
doesn't show its willingness to protect old items from being butchered. Why
should people post here if they know that years from now, long after they've
left, their words could be still be floating around, taken out of context by
other users who have butchered the items they posted in?
This goes directly to whether Grex has a future, because if Grex doesn't
protect its past than it HAS no future. Don't let the needs of one or two
users outweigh the big picture and how it affects the rest of us.
JEP, I understand your concerns and I would have had no issue had you deleted
those items the week, the month or the year you posted them. But there has
to be a time when the item, and the conference are considered closed by Grex,
and the staff should then move to preserve everything in those items and confs
as they then exist.
|
krj
|
|
response 44 of 357:
|
Jan 10 03:03 UTC 2004 |
Richard, you're just making noise to hear yourself talk.
M-net grew up regularly destroying the contents of conferences that
were more than a few months old, and FWs on Grex were routinely expected
to delete old, inactive items to save space in the early days, when
disk was scarce.
|
richard
|
|
response 45 of 357:
|
Jan 10 03:21 UTC 2004 |
krj and look whats happened to mnet. Its not worth crap anymore. You want
what happened to mnet to happen to grex? It will unless staff takes care of
its history
|
albaugh
|
|
response 46 of 357:
|
Jan 10 04:18 UTC 2004 |
"butchered", "taken out of context" - what histrionics! How many people have
actually said they agreed with you richard. #44 is right on.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 47 of 357:
|
Jan 10 04:52 UTC 2004 |
Re #45: Hang on. You're arguing that M-Net is in trouble because FWs have
deleted too many inactive conferences? Have you looked at M-Net
ever?
|
anderyn
|
|
response 48 of 357:
|
Jan 10 04:52 UTC 2004 |
I have no objection to anything I said in the past being taken away, deleted,
whatever. I actually thought that old agoras were deleted after a certain
time, up until this big controversy.
|
richard
|
|
response 49 of 357:
|
Jan 10 05:24 UTC 2004 |
#46...no #44 is not right on. Albaugh you are not a mind reader and you don't
speak for anyone but yourself. So leave it alone.
|