|
Grex > Coop13 > #111: A Proposal to Clarify Grex's Stance on Deleting Items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 235 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 39 of 235:
| 
Feb 9 23:34 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 40 of 235:
|
Feb 10 01:04 UTC 2004 |
I don't understand responses 36-39, but I wonder if I am expected to.
I'm surprised by how the vote went. I really expected the items to be
restored. Nonetheless, I can still see the membership deciding that the
deletions should NOT be repeated. Indeed, that is the impression I've
gotten from the discusssions (which is why I am surprised by the outcome).
Mary, we _don't_ have to be consistent, y'know; we are people. :)
At this point, I'd rather reserve the "authors may delete their items"
option for consideration if the present proposal fails, even though I am
more in favour of the first proposal.
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 41 of 235:
|
Feb 10 01:22 UTC 2004 |
I don't see why 36-39 would confuse you.
|
naftee
|
|
response 42 of 235:
|
Feb 10 01:52 UTC 2004 |
Wait; remember that the staff is easily confused about issues.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 43 of 235:
|
Feb 10 02:32 UTC 2004 |
I'm not completely satisfied with the text so far, since it leaves room
for people to harrass fair-witnesses who remove items. So I'll be trying
to improve the text. Comments are appreciated.
An item's author, the person who originally enters an item,
may remove that item at any time before someone else has
responded to it. After another person has responded, an
item may be removed only if it poses a clear and present
danger to the system or it clearly abets criminal activity.
Examples of the former include a very large item that
attempts to fill all available disk space, an item that is
posted more than once or in several conferences at once and
items that contain terminal escape sequences. Examples of
the latter include items that contain social security numbers
or credit card numbers. These examples are not exhaustive;
fair-witnesses and staff have discretion to act in the best
interests of grex and its users.
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 44 of 235:
|
Feb 10 02:40 UTC 2004 |
That would undeniably allow Greek Week; I vote yes.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 45 of 235:
|
Feb 10 02:41 UTC 2004 |
No, it would not. It falls under "not exhaustive" and "discretion to act
in the best interest of grex." But I'm willing to entertain suggestions
on how to more explicitly exclude such vandalism.
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 46 of 235:
|
Feb 10 03:54 UTC 2004 |
Oh, ah ha! Now we get to the REAL issue being voted upon here: this isn't
an item to LIMIT staff power: O, no, it's to increase it so that, at their
whim, guided by "judgement", they can delete any item they choose --- at their
whim! Do you deny this is fact?
|
kip
|
|
response 47 of 235:
|
Feb 10 04:53 UTC 2004 |
Am I supposed to sigh or shake my head here?
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 48 of 235:
|
Feb 10 04:57 UTC 2004 |
I don't think it's deniable, kip, that the above proposal, which would, in
fact, have made Valerie's vandalism perfectly legitimate under the rules, is
disguised as something that will limit and clarify staff's power.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 49 of 235:
|
Feb 10 05:01 UTC 2004 |
At what, Kip?
|
robh
|
|
response 50 of 235:
|
Feb 10 05:51 UTC 2004 |
Not that I think jp2 or any of the other M-Net twits care,
but for the record I voted before I got Valerie's e-mail.
|
krj
|
|
response 51 of 235:
|
Feb 10 06:57 UTC 2004 |
Was just ruminating: in all the text that's been written on this, did
anyone mention the precedent of the destruction of the Sex conference
by a fairwitness on her way out of the system? This happened in the
aftermath of the "unregistered reading via web" vote.
|
robh
|
|
response 52 of 235:
|
Feb 10 07:02 UTC 2004 |
I do indeed remember that ('twas the same time I resgined
from baff, for the same reason), and I think she had less
reason to do what she did that Valerie had.
|
naftee
|
|
response 53 of 235:
|
Feb 10 12:47 UTC 2004 |
Too bad I wasn't around.
|
janc
|
|
response 54 of 235:
|
Feb 10 15:32 UTC 2004 |
I'm disinclined to start generating written policies for everything Grex
does.
|
gull
|
|
response 55 of 235:
|
Feb 10 16:11 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:29: I think people might vote differently when the question is
presented without specific users being involved. I suspect a lot of
people voted the way they did out of sympathy for valerie and jep.
|
aruba
|
|
response 56 of 235:
|
Feb 10 17:36 UTC 2004 |
It will be a different question if we're voting on a general policy.
|
tod
|
|
response 57 of 235:
|
Feb 10 18:43 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 58 of 235:
|
Feb 10 18:52 UTC 2004 |
Look everyone, a policy will not keep a rogue FW from mass item murder, since
the policy does not control / constrain the power a FW has. All you can do
with a policy is set expectations of acceptable behavior and use it to justify
the removal of a rogue FW / staff who deliberately violates it.
|
jp2
|
|
response 59 of 235:
|
Feb 10 18:56 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 60 of 235:
|
Feb 10 18:56 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 61 of 235:
|
Feb 10 18:59 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 62 of 235:
|
Feb 10 19:00 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 63 of 235:
|
Feb 10 19:05 UTC 2004 |
Actually, with the new policy, there _would_ be a mechanism to undo a
deletion. All that is needed is a statement that deletions are not allowed,
which is what this proposal accomplishes.
|