|
Grex > Oldcoop > #75: Member Initative: Restore the Murdered Items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 424 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 45 of 424:
| 
Jan 10 21:51 UTC 2004 |
#43...but Jan does it not also violate grex's own previously established
principles, if authors delete other people's posts in the act of deleting
their own? I think its a question of whether you can infringe upon other
people's rights to have their own words posted while in the act of enforcing
your own. I posted in some of JEP's items, does he strictly speaking have the
right to request removal of my posts just because he has the right to request
removal of his own?
|
naftee
|
|
response 46 of 424:
|
Jan 10 22:14 UTC 2004 |
re 43 But they would never get around to doing that! They'd stall on purpose!
|
tod
|
|
response 47 of 424:
|
Jan 10 23:51 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 48 of 424:
|
Jan 11 02:05 UTC 2004 |
I think jep's divorce item has too many valuable insights to disappear.
Even if his posts are deleted (which I certainly understand and do not
oppose), I believe the benefits others provided in terms of their own
opinions and experiences far outweigh the "benefit" of deleting the
entire item.
|
jp2
|
|
response 49 of 424:
|
Jan 11 02:08 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cross
|
|
response 50 of 424:
|
Jan 11 04:04 UTC 2004 |
Naming of an item is irrelevant. In a forum like this, creating an
item is an invitation for public discussion, by definition. There is
no ownership of a discussion amongst public participants; that's an
impossible concept. It's like asking, ``Who owns `speech'?''
If, therefore, there is no owner, then it is inappropriate for one person
to decide they have any authority to delete the words of another person.
Think of it this way: if someone else had created an item parallel
to Valerie's baby diary items entitled something like, `discussion of
valerie's baby diary', would Valerie `own' that too? Of course not,
it doesn't make any sense.
That said, I feel empathy for jep and valerie's emotions in wanting to
make their posts go away. I still think my previous suggestion is an
acceptible way to go that has the potential to accomodate all parties.
|
jep
|
|
response 51 of 424:
|
Jan 11 04:05 UTC 2004 |
I agree there was value in my divorce items. However, it was all
intended for me, and for my situation. There was virtually no drift
in those items.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 52 of 424:
|
Jan 11 04:26 UTC 2004 |
That's not the point. People said what they said, and just because those words
were placed in an item you began, and about you, does not mean you own those
words. Especially when those words may have independant value for someone
other than you.
|
jep
|
|
response 53 of 424:
|
Jan 11 04:58 UTC 2004 |
I regret that that value was lost, cyklone. I wish I didn't think
there was a need to remove those items. It is possible someone would
have someday come across my items when in a similar situation and with
a similar mindset, and could thereby have gotten through the
experience a little easier.
You see, I do understand that aspect of the issue. What I would have
given for an account of that type of experience, while I was going
through it...
But those items mean something else, too. I wouldn't have entered
them, or at least wouldn't have said as much in them, if I'd had
appropriate concern for what might come of them some day. I just
*didn't care*. It seems to me to be pretty harsh to force someone to
have something remain when it was created under those types of
circumstances.
Also, that they're deleted now is an important fact about them. They
can not again be an obscure, past account of my feelings about my
divorce. Now they'd be a part of a political storm, a target for
people who have no concern about me at all, and also a target for
people who don't like that I had them deleted. They're deleted now.
That's real, and it has real impact. Undeleting them doesn't put
things back to where they were. Undeleting them is a completely new
action, which has never been done before on Grex.
That is of course true for Valerie's items, and for items all over the
conferences which once contained Valerie's responses. Restoring them
does not set back the clock. It'd be a whole new type of action,
compounding the consequences -- not erasing them -- of what has
already happened this week.
If I hadn't gotten my items deleted, they might well have gained new
usage from a different group of people; those who are archiving
controversial items just to show people they can't delete even their
own text.
It is *not* as simple as "the items were created once, now they should
be here permanently". Both because my items were deleted, and because
of other events, much has changed here this week.
|
janc
|
|
response 54 of 424:
|
Jan 11 07:59 UTC 2004 |
Richard - nobody is arguing that their deletion was procedurally correct.
The person who deleted them has already resigned. We are all willing to
agree that that should not have been done in that manner. There is no need
to keep debating that point.
If I'd had my way, the items would have been deleted with the formal
approval of the board temporarily, so that we could have this discussion.
If that had happened, then there would be at least a little reason to
debate whether or not it was the right thing to do - it would have been
an official Grex action, not an accident that happened to Grex.
In any case, if they hadn't been deleted, one way or the other, then we
couldn't even be having this public discussion of the merits of deleting them.
The question here is to weigh the potentials for harm in each course.
One way, JEP is exposed to some risks that he has outlined. The other
way, Grex might have taken a small step closer to the slippery slope
of censorship. The first risks a person (two really), the second risks
an institution. None of us can do anything to mitigate the risks to
JEP if we restore his item. All of us can do things to prevent Grex from
sliding down the slope into routine censorship if we do don't.
I think there's no comparison here. It's a no brainer.
|
jp2
|
|
response 55 of 424:
|
Jan 11 14:15 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 56 of 424:
|
Jan 11 14:24 UTC 2004 |
That deleting the items was wrong does not make restoring them right;
restoring them is also wrong.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 57 of 424:
|
Jan 11 14:48 UTC 2004 |
I disagree with jp's assertion that valerie and jep lack moral character. They
just made mistakes, as we all do from time to time.
|
tod
|
|
response 58 of 424:
|
Jan 11 14:59 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 59 of 424:
|
Jan 11 15:30 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 60 of 424:
|
Jan 11 15:58 UTC 2004 |
Jep isn't insisting on that. I believe he'd be fine if his items were
restored minus all of his comments.
|
jp2
|
|
response 61 of 424:
|
Jan 11 16:01 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 62 of 424:
|
Jan 11 16:07 UTC 2004 |
His objection to doing that is procedural -- he doesn't want the whole item
restored to public view while he removes his posts from it.
|
jp2
|
|
response 63 of 424:
|
Jan 11 16:14 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 64 of 424:
|
Jan 11 17:19 UTC 2004 |
jep, would you argue, then, that the standard for removing whole items
should be that the person who entered them regrets having done so and
feels their mental state was different when they did? That seems pretty
low. Would it also apply to items that the person hadn't entered, but
had posted a large number of responses to?
|
jep
|
|
response 65 of 424:
|
Jan 11 17:46 UTC 2004 |
I am not arguing for a standard for removal of items. I am arguing
against the idea that Valerie's actions can be undone. They
happened. There are effects which cannot be undone now.
Overall, it would be better in most ways if no items had been removed
at all. If I'd been involved with writing a policy a week ago, I
would have tried to influence it against removal of items by staff
members. That would, of course, have prevented my items from being
removed by staff, too.
But circumstances are different now.
My expectations for my items is certainly different now than it was a
few days ago. Then, they were there and nothing could be done about
them. Now, they're gone and it would take a staff action to restore
them. That action would be an action to hurt me. That would be it's
main effect from my perspective. It would, by the way, hurt me more
than it would help Grex. I will not, of course, stand by while
something like that is done to me.
|
janc
|
|
response 66 of 424:
|
Jan 11 17:56 UTC 2004 |
OK, Jamie. Let's all decide to delete JEP's items temporarily while we
discuss whether we should permanently delete them or not. Thus we
magically change their status from "deleted because Valerie was bad" to
"deleted because we want to be able to discuss them." This fairly
effortless transistion now allows us to declare Valerie bad without
being coerced by simplistic logic into instantly restoring the items.
Does that serve?
David: I think the standard for removing items should be that the risk
of harm to the person requesting the deletion if they are left up is
substantially greater than the risk of harm to Grex if they are deleted.
|
mary
|
|
response 67 of 424:
|
Jan 11 18:10 UTC 2004 |
That makes it an easy call then, Jan. With the items restored, and all of
Jep's comments and Valerie's comments removed, then there is very little
left to cause them any harm whatsoever. And Grex is left with the clear
understanding that users can't censor other users. Which I find a biggie
in terms of what makes Grex special.
|
mary
|
|
response 68 of 424:
|
Jan 11 18:17 UTC 2004 |
And this is going to sound very harsh, but has to be said.
Jan, are you quite sure that Valerie doesn't have access
to the pumpkin where she could tamper with the backup tapes
before this issue is resolved? I'm sorry I have to ask.
|
naftee
|
|
response 69 of 424:
|
Jan 11 20:43 UTC 2004 |
re 65
>That action would be an action to hurt me.
Don't you agree that the action of censoring other people's text hurt them
as well? Or are you as selfish as valerie and refuse to acknowledge other
people's feelings?
|