|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 393 responses total. |
cmcgee
|
|
response 298 of 393:
| 
Jan 10 22:01 UTC 2004 |
I think automatically clearing old items is a bad idea. The info conference,
for example has a lot of "old" info that is still useable. In fact, I really
hope valerie can later be convinced to restore her responses in that
conference.
|
naftee
|
|
response 299 of 393:
|
Jan 10 22:10 UTC 2004 |
Maybe GreX needs a classics conference!
|
tod
|
|
response 300 of 393:
|
Jan 10 23:39 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
styles
|
|
response 301 of 393:
|
Jan 11 00:46 UTC 2004 |
you mean the common sense of not trying to do something as root when the
conferencing system clearly does not allow you to do it as yourself?
|
jp2
|
|
response 302 of 393:
|
Jan 11 01:04 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 303 of 393:
|
Jan 11 04:26 UTC 2004 |
re resp:296: I would be interested in the perceptions of staffers for
the rules being established in the coop conference. So would others.
I think it might be hard to argue that the common users should be
excluded from knowing how the staff might be interpreting the rules.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 304 of 393:
|
Jan 11 08:11 UTC 2004 |
I think the purpose of Eric's suggestion was to make sure that all of the
staff are on the same page, that all agree on how the rules established in
coop should be implemented. Reporting that agreement is only necessary if
it results in something different from what the membership established here.
We want to avoid a repeat of this week's experience, where different staffers
had different opinions of what the rules were and how those rules should be
applied.
|
naftee
|
|
response 305 of 393:
|
Jan 11 20:33 UTC 2004 |
Haven't all the staff voiced their opinions in this item?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 306 of 393:
|
Jan 12 00:11 UTC 2004 |
No, they've not. Several staff members do not read coop, as I think Jan
mentioned some time back. If reading a coop is a requirement, they'll quit.
|
spooked
|
|
response 307 of 393:
|
Jan 12 00:59 UTC 2004 |
As a staffer (and general onlooker), I don't think adding my opinion on
this will advance the issue.
What is clear, to me, is that we need to move forward constructively and
I'm putting my faith in the board to see some sense and get Grex back on
track - we must not let those who wish to destroy us win.
|
naftee
|
|
response 308 of 393:
|
Jan 12 01:08 UTC 2004 |
menuadm
|
willcome
|
|
response 309 of 393:
|
Jan 12 10:01 UTC 2004 |
(Anyone who thinks there's anyone who wants to destroy Grex, or that there's
a concerted effort to do so, is fucking paranoid.)
|
davel
|
|
response 310 of 393:
|
Jan 12 13:31 UTC 2004 |
Re 307: too late, I'm afraid.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 311 of 393:
|
Jan 12 22:21 UTC 2004 |
Note that my recollection on the reconsidering of "closing the scribbled log"
was in response to the anonymous internet reading of grex conferences that
backtalk allowed.
|
mary
|
|
response 312 of 393:
|
Jan 13 01:01 UTC 2004 |
I have a question for Jan.
Let's say we do indeed decide not to restore these items. We'll say that
Valerie has a right to remove the responses of all those who participated
in the discussion, because the discussion was about her. (I'm not going to
argue that point but concede it for the moment.) And we're going to
remove the entirety of the divorce items because, at some point, what
other people said about or to jep may be harmful to him or his custody
battle or his child or even his wife. Yes, John, even your wife.
Anyhow, we do this because it's the right thing to do.
So when the next person comes along, all upset, begging for responses
entered by someone else to be censored because they could indeed hurt
him, or someone he loved, or his job status, or whatever, then what?
Do we say our kindness was a one time gift? Do we ask for the whole of
Grex to vote but first remove the item? Do we elect a censorship czar to
decide whether the request is authentic?
That's the end of my question.
You can say Valerie's action was that of a rogue staffer, acting on her
own. But if we, meaning staff, board or even the whole of our membership,
agrees to censor these items for the reasons that have been given, then we
will have set some precedent. We will have instituted censorship of each
other's posts if only you can make the case the responses are really
about you or hurtful.
Yuck. Double yuck.
I'm very anti-censorship. I'm pro informing people of how the system
operates and warning them to join in, with this warning: they might not
like everything they see. And they won't be able to erase what others
say. We all get to have opinions, for better or worse. Welcome to
Grex.
|
naftee
|
|
response 313 of 393:
|
Jan 13 02:01 UTC 2004 |
Great! But neither jep NOR valerie told the general public that they
had killed items until AFTER the fact.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 314 of 393:
|
Jan 13 02:58 UTC 2004 |
Would doing otherwise have changed things? I'm curious.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 315 of 393:
|
Jan 13 03:37 UTC 2004 |
The question was for Jan, but I'll venture my answer:
Valerie deleted her items because she thought that such action was within
the guidelines for grex. We have all since learned that she was wrong:
her action was NOT within the guidelines.
Valerie deleted JEP's items because she could not think of any way to NOT
delete them, after having deleted her own. (I'm reminded of a line from
"Joan of Arcadia": "Don't blame me for your lack of imagination.")
We are all now very clear on what current policy is: we can delete our
own text, but not the text of others. The events of last week were an
aberation that will NOT be repeated.
So why not restore the erroneously deleted text? Because to do so would
serve no USEFUL purpose. It might make a few people feel better, but
it would not improve the state of grex. It would NOT undo the harm of
last week. However, it WOULD do fresh harm: those items could never again
lie fallow. They would be instantly copied and recopied by all interested,
and many disinterested, parties; we are all sensitised to them. Better to
live with the single wrong of their deletion than the double-wrong of
their restoration.
|
gull
|
|
response 316 of 393:
|
Jan 13 03:43 UTC 2004 |
I've kind of come around to agreeing with the view expressed in resp:
315. I think we need to look forward from here, not backward.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 317 of 393:
|
Jan 13 04:44 UTC 2004 |
Re #315: I don't think Valerie cared whether her actions were within the
guidelines or not; her own comfort and feeling of control were
paramount. She herself said that she was prepared to be removed
from staff for it, so it's clear she at least suspected she was
doing something she wasn't supposed to.
|
bru
|
|
response 318 of 393:
|
Jan 13 04:58 UTC 2004 |
delete and be damned! They are no great loss.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 319 of 393:
|
Jan 13 05:00 UTC 2004 |
If that's the standard, let's torch 80% of the conferencing system.
|
other
|
|
response 320 of 393:
|
Jan 13 05:24 UTC 2004 |
Mary, I would respond that if it came to it, our answer would be
that this was an aberration, not a one-time kindness. Our answer
would be that this was the result of an internal communication issue
we didn't know existed, and we're using this opportunity to insure
that it doesn't happen again. Our answer would be that this WAS a
violation of existing policy.
My guiding principle here is the one of least harm. That principle
dictates that the text rightfully removed remain removed, and the
text not rightfully removed be restored, except insofar as it quotes
significantly (an admittedly unclear standard) from the rightfully
removed text. The stated purposes of item removal were specifically
prevention of future parody (Valerie) and prevention of future abuse
(John). Valerie's case is easier, since it is her text in specific
which represents the potential, and it can easily be identified and
separated. Jep's case is a bit harder. Not having great
familiarity with the precise content of the items, I can't say
exactly how best to serve both his need and the need to protect
against censorship, but I'm SURE there is a balance to be struck.
However, that compromise will likely be less satisfactory to jep
than to those others who posted in his items.
Jep's right to redress his own errors does not supercede the rights
of others to control over their own thoughts and ideas, nor does it
supercede the rights of Grex to to what is in its own best interests
within the limitations of the law, and that's something he'll have
to accept.
The point is that we can move on from here with some reasonable
action which addresses the current issues without establishing a
precedent Grex can't live with, and we can do it without completely
backtracking and exposing jep to the full extent he fears.
|
willcome
|
|
response 321 of 393:
|
Jan 13 09:57 UTC 2004 |
Do you know about the harm principle? It's based on you shouldn't harm the
harmless as a legal law. What do you think?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 322 of 393:
|
Jan 13 13:15 UTC 2004 |
Re #320: That's well said, and a good explanation of my position too.
|