|
Grex > Coop13 > #82: Member proposal restricting staff's ability to delete conference items. |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 108 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 32 of 108:
| 
Jan 15 17:11 UTC 2004 |
That's a good point. My first reaction is that the default policy
should be "no fairwitness deletions", but I'm willing to entertain other
suggestions. I think it can be fairly restrictive, since if a
fairwitness actually cares to use their deletion power it doesn't take
much effort to post a policy.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 33 of 108:
|
Jan 15 18:23 UTC 2004 |
Then my suggestion would be the default policy gives conf. fw's to retire and
even kill items created for the express purpose of SPAMming the conf. (thus
making it undesirable for grexing).
|
carson
|
|
response 34 of 108:
|
Jan 15 19:09 UTC 2004 |
(resp:31 FWs already can't scribble responses in PicoSpan, AFAIK. [I
seem to remember it being a feature in YAPP.] I think that this
proposal would be too broad if it tried to cover that non-aspect of
FWing as well.)
(I also gathered from the wording of the proposal that, if no policy
[ugh, I'm starting to *hate* that word] were posted in the conference,
FWs and staff wouldn't be able to delete items in the conference at
all. I don't understand why there would need to be a specific default
P-O-L-I-C-Y, unless it's to avoid a hypothetical revival of this
discussion in the future.)
|
willcome
|
|
response 35 of 108:
|
Jan 15 19:57 UTC 2004 |
Hey, I used the ability to customise the look of various conferences!!1
|
gull
|
|
response 36 of 108:
|
Jan 15 21:16 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:33: My proposal does not put any restrictions on staff retiring
items, only killing them.
|
gull
|
|
response 37 of 108:
|
Jan 15 21:17 UTC 2004 |
(Hmm...do I need to clarify that point? To me it seems obvious that
retiring an item is different than deleting it, but it may not be
obvious to everyone.)
|
flem
|
|
response 38 of 108:
|
Jan 15 21:31 UTC 2004 |
I'm personally not sure what happens when an item gets retired. Could
someone clarify?
|
gull
|
|
response 39 of 108:
|
Jan 15 21:33 UTC 2004 |
My understanding is that it still exists in the conference, but is never
treated as 'new'. I'm not sure if it still shows up in the item list or
not.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 40 of 108:
|
Jan 15 23:37 UTC 2004 |
If you "set noforget", a retired item shows up just like any other. Try it
agora: set noforget <RETURN> browse <RETURN> and then scan for item 49.
|
gull
|
|
response 41 of 108:
|
Jan 16 00:48 UTC 2004 |
So it basically has the same effect as 'forget', but for everyone who reads
the conference?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 42 of 108:
|
Jan 16 00:49 UTC 2004 |
Yup.
|
naftee
|
|
response 43 of 108:
|
Jan 16 02:55 UTC 2004 |
I used the web-customization ability of backtalk too, and found it very
effective.
|
aruba
|
|
response 44 of 108:
|
Jan 16 20:54 UTC 2004 |
Re #24: Again, are you saying that you don't know anyone who would spam the
conferences repeatedly, until the disk literally fills up? Maybe someone
reading this item right now?
|
gull
|
|
response 45 of 108:
|
Jan 16 21:49 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:44:
I don't think it's likely. It's never happened in the past, and the
opportunity has always been there. (Staff generally doesn't react
instantly to such things.) It would be an exceedingly slow and tedious
way to fill a disk compared to, say, 'dd if=/dev/zero of=~/bigfile'
I'll consider putting an exception in for that situation, but at the
moment I can't think of a good way to word it. I'm not comfortable with
just saying "staff may remove spam items" because then we have the
problem of how to determine what's spam and what isn't. If we allow
staff members to remove any items that they don't think have value, that
pretty well guts the proposal.
|
aruba
|
|
response 46 of 108:
|
Jan 17 04:13 UTC 2004 |
If someone just created a big file, we all know staff would delete it. So
that wouldn't be an effective way to fill up the disk. But your proposal
gives people a foolproof way to do it.
I know you mean well here, David, but I don't think tying the staff's hands
is the answer.
|
mary
|
|
response 47 of 108:
|
Jan 17 05:39 UTC 2004 |
I agree.
|
gull
|
|
response 48 of 108:
|
Jan 18 17:09 UTC 2004 |
I disagree; I think valerie's actions demonstrate that staff's hands
need to be tied in this matter.
|
gull
|
|
response 49 of 108:
|
Jan 18 17:54 UTC 2004 |
Here's a revision of the proposal that attempts to address aruba's
objection. I've also clarified the default policy of the first exception.
--- %< ---- cut here ----
Grex staff and conference fairwitnesses shall not remove items from
conferences. The following exceptions are made:
- Fairwitnesses of conferences where item removal is part of clearly
stated conference policy may remove items in accordance with that
policy. If no policy is posted, items may not be removed by fairwitnesses.
- Items that contain information that is unlawful to distribute or
otherwise presents a legal threat to Grex may be removed, IF the less
disruptive method of erasing individual responses is not sufficient.
- Items that adversely affect the operation of the conferencing system
may be removed.
None of this should be construed to affect an individual user's right to
erase ("scribble" in Picospan) their own responses.
--- %< ---- cut here ----
The new third exception should, for example, cover cases where someone
enters an item that uses excessive amounts of disk space, contains
control codes that upset people's terminals, or confuses the
conferencing software.
|
naftee
|
|
response 50 of 108:
|
Jan 18 18:20 UTC 2004 |
How about changing that to 'operation of the conferencing system software'
?
|
gull
|
|
response 51 of 108:
|
Jan 18 22:06 UTC 2004 |
That would probably be clearer.
|
aruba
|
|
response 52 of 108:
|
Jan 18 23:52 UTC 2004 |
This proposal wouldn't have prevented Valerie from doing what she did. NO
PROPOSAL can be made that will protect Grex from a staff member who decides
to break the rules. Period.
THanks for making the change, David. I still don't believe this motion is
a good idea, but I like it better than I did before.
|
naftee
|
|
response 53 of 108:
|
Jan 19 04:08 UTC 2004 |
re 51 Yea, it wouldn't need any explanation :-0 .
|
gull
|
|
response 54 of 108:
|
Jan 19 14:08 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:52: From the discussion, though, I've gathered that valerie
didn't actually break any rules. Or at very least there's no agreement
among staff members that she didn't have the right to do what she did.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 55 of 108:
|
Jan 19 16:25 UTC 2004 |
(Is there agreement among the rest of grex's members and users that she broke
the rules?)
|
jep
|
|
response 56 of 108:
|
Jan 19 16:45 UTC 2004 |
re resp:55: Not complete agreement, no.
I would say she didn't act in the best interests of Grex in initially
deleting her own items. I think she shouldn't have done it because of
her own interest in those items. She should have asked another staff
member to do it.
There was not a rule that she couldn't do what she did.
I'd say once she deleted her own, she established a precedent by which
she had to delete mine when I asked her to. There was still no rule
that a staff member couldn't delete items. There was some conflict of
interest when she deleted my items, but much less than when she deleted
her own.
|