|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 393 responses total. |
willcome
|
|
response 51 of 393:
| 
Jan 6 19:57 UTC 2004 |
I'm not stupid. :(
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 52 of 393:
|
Jan 6 19:58 UTC 2004 |
>#36 of 50 by Scott Helmke (scott) on Tue Jan 6 13:24:39 2004:
>I'd want to hear complaints from the people whose content was
>deleted, not the usual troublemakers like polytarp and jp2.
I resent having my posts deleted.
While I can understand why Valerie did what she did, it's not like she
didn't have an alternative to just nuking the complete items. There
were a large number of side-discussions, like any other item on grex,
that could be pretty beneficial to the community.
And it's not like she knew it wasn't allowed. She did try to delete
them as herself, but when that didn't work.. out came the magic staff
powers. Nice work.
|
other
|
|
response 53 of 393:
|
Jan 6 19:59 UTC 2004 |
Funny, all the evidence I've seen points to the contrary. You're
welcome to attempt to provide some counter evidence, but I doubt
you're up to the challenge.
|
other
|
|
response 54 of 393:
|
Jan 6 20:00 UTC 2004 |
Mynxcat slipped in
|
slynne
|
|
response 55 of 393:
|
Jan 6 20:08 UTC 2004 |
Would an author of an item have the power to retire it?
|
carson
|
|
response 56 of 393:
|
Jan 6 20:19 UTC 2004 |
(I could have sworn that, as a FW, I had the option of killing an
item. I don't believe this to be anything new and, when I was actively
FWing the games conference, it was a standard practice. isn't valerie
a FW in the conference where she had posted the items? doesn't that
give her the power to kill said items, regardless of her staff
position? and, if that's the case, will the jackasses who have
groundlessly claimed that valerie abused some nebulous staff power [and
the list appears to be getting longer] apologize to her?)
(what was the problem, again?)
|
jp2
|
|
response 57 of 393:
|
Jan 6 20:31 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 58 of 393:
|
Jan 6 20:32 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
willcome
|
|
response 59 of 393:
|
Jan 6 21:04 UTC 2004 |
I also object to having had my posts removed.
|
gull
|
|
response 60 of 393:
|
Jan 6 21:10 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:53: These lines from resp:0 would tend to support mynxcat's
interpretation:
---
----Valerie Mates: valerie(112) pid=13463
cf=/bbs/femme 81 ps T3.3a Mon Jan 5 11:59:08 2004
prompt="(oops)? " (prompt) cmd was: kill 81^J
error was:You can't do that!
----PicoSpan file owner: cfadm(60) pid=13712
cf=/bbs/femme 81 ps T3.3a Mon Jan 5 12:00:01 2004
prompt="(oops)? " (prompt) cmd was: kill 81^J
error was:Deleting message 81
---
It looks like Valerie tried to delete them as a normal user, then when
she couldn't, switched to doing it as cfadm. That should have provided
her with a pretty strong hint that this isn't something normal users can
do. I'm sorry but pleading ignorance isn't very convincing.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 61 of 393:
|
Jan 6 21:28 UTC 2004 |
Response 57 highlights the disagreement: I think the author of an item
has the right to remove the item, EVEN IF OTHERS HAVE RESPONDED. This
includes agora's "happy", "bummed" and "license plate" items, where the
item author is often just the 'lucky' one who got there first.
|
willcome
|
|
response 62 of 393:
|
Jan 6 21:35 UTC 2004 |
Do you think it'd be appropriate for, say, naftee to be able to delete this
item, despite how obviously important it is?
|
albaugh
|
|
response 63 of 393:
|
Jan 6 21:35 UTC 2004 |
I'm not thrilled that valerie used her extra powers to do what she did.
But if all grex users without those extra powers can request of those that
do, at any time, to have their items similarly killed, and that arrangement
is duly documented, then I would be satisfied. (I'm not happy about the
precedent this sets, but OTOH I don't see this coming up that much.)
However, if grex is not willing to guarantee all users this capability,
then it should freely admit that some users, for right or wrong (and it might
be "right"), get special treatment.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 64 of 393:
|
Jan 6 21:37 UTC 2004 |
Please clarify #61 - by "has the right" do you mean "currently possesses the
capability" (i.e. via picospan commands) or "philosophically should have the
ability"?
|
slynne
|
|
response 65 of 393:
|
Jan 6 21:56 UTC 2004 |
resp:61 I would agree with you but I think I have to admit that I would
be kind of angry if someone entered the "happy" item and then later on
in the month decided that they wanted to be a pain and kill it. (not
that I think that is very likely to happen)
However, an item such as the baby diary where so much of the content
was personal and from one author is different. In my mind it is anyway.
Maybe the answer is to give authors control over their items. That way
folks who are worried that their responses might get deleted can
refrain from posting in items where that is likely to happen.
|
naftee
|
|
response 66 of 393:
|
Jan 6 22:08 UTC 2004 |
re 30 You're an idiot. It was janc who was the one who found them,
and he was more upset than valerie. Do something useful for once, and
read the stupid item.
re 63 Despite what Mary Remmers says, the deletion of those items was
not "duly documented" as you wrote above. I had to find them myself.
Why didn't valerie post an item about it in femme, that the items were
gone? Simply because she knew what she did was wrong. I think jp2's
demand in response #17 is quite in order.
According to http://www.valeriemates.com/programming.html , it appears
Mrs. Mates is an experienced programmer. She certainly had the
ability to write a script to remove all her baby diary and associated
text from the femme conference.
Instead, she chose the big red hammer.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 67 of 393:
|
Jan 6 22:54 UTC 2004 |
Re #62: Yes.
Re #64: Right, not (currently) capability. (cmcgee made some comment
about drafting a proposition to add the capability.)
Re #65: Yup, I'd be a tad irritated by such behaviour as well. However,
I think it self-correcting: When the item was deleted, someone else
would enter a new one. If the same person did the same thing enough
times ("enough" is in the eye of the beholder), folks would make sure
that the item was entered by someone they deemed reliable and avoid the
unreliable item.
"Fully documented" means that the procedure for getting an item removed
is published. (BTW, I've learned something from this item: I didn't
know there was an "error log" for bbs.)
|
scott
|
|
response 68 of 393:
|
Jan 6 22:59 UTC 2004 |
I don't think Valerie did the appropriate thing here.
However, I'm far more disapproving of naftee, polytarp (whatever the current
login is) and even jp2 for using this as yet another excuse to harass people
while pretending to be outraged.
|
ryan
|
|
response 69 of 393:
|
Jan 6 23:31 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 70 of 393:
|
Jan 6 23:41 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 71 of 393:
|
Jan 6 23:47 UTC 2004 |
True, there are some people who are *upset*.
You are the only one(s) claiming outrage.
|
jp2
|
|
response 72 of 393:
|
Jan 6 23:48 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 73 of 393:
|
Jan 6 23:56 UTC 2004 |
re 67 You shock me.
re 70 Does that make you the American asshole? You could be on to something.
re 71 Response #0 does not claim outrage.
|
gull
|
|
response 74 of 393:
|
Jan 6 23:59 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:61: I think that's a valid argument to make. But it's not what
the item is about. If you want to make it possible for people to delete
their items, that would be a good proposal to put to a member vote.
What we're talking about here is a staff member exercising, for their
own benefit, a privilage that no one else has a clearly defined right to.
|
naftee
|
|
response 75 of 393:
|
Jan 7 00:01 UTC 2004 |
and for good reason!
|