|
Grex > Coop13 > #76: member initiative: do not restore two items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 357 responses total. |
happyboy
|
|
response 52 of 357:
| 
Jan 10 11:43 UTC 2004 |
re50: welcome back, vandal.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 53 of 357:
|
Jan 10 13:22 UTC 2004 |
The drama and scandal continues. *sigh*
Hindsight is apparently 20/20. At the risk of beating a dead horse,
again and again, I see that discretion on the Internet should have
been a rule of thumb here-- in regards to the big scandals that are
raging.
I realize John was having some struggles at the time-- again, I'm not
sure if seeking advice from an online group might have been better
served by a listserv (with an archive locked away from the public if
it had one, most people may be thinking of Yahoo! Groups) but he did
choose Grex, I guess, because it was convenient, I am guessing.
Starting something like I mentioned might have been a hassle-- but
then, I think it would have been away from the prying eyes of the
public.
My gut says to restore the items and let John scribble his responses,
although I know that will leave the items looking very awkward and
stilted. The more these debates rage on, the more I am thinking that
users should consider carefully before posting sensitive information.
I will comment on Valerie's situation for a moment-- I suppose weblogs
were not a big thing six years ago-- but from what I know now, if I
were in her situation, I would put a baby diary there, say to a site
like LiveJournal-- and I would lock it to friends only... or more
specifically, a certain group of friends. Again, I am guessing maybe
these tools weren't around then... but... I think you understand what
I mean.
I am empathetic to John and Valerie's feelings. It is hard to see
sensitive material misused... or to worry that such might be misused.
But... I was lampooned too. I'll deal. Sorry, they don't know the
real me, I can always change and I can be more careful with what I put
out in cyberspace. I'm not real happy with the actions that were
taken. Some definite lines *were* crossed, some bad precedents do
seem to be forming in my opinion, and it's not the usual bellyachers
that are in heated debate over this.
|
naftee
|
|
response 54 of 357:
|
Jan 10 17:16 UTC 2004 |
valerie is trying to ruin these two items by posting the same response twice.
|
gull
|
|
response 55 of 357:
|
Jan 10 18:25 UTC 2004 |
Personally, while I'm not all that happy with the scribbling that's gone
on, I'm not particularly concerned that a scribbled response will make
one of my responses look ridiculous. I haven't gotten that impression
in any of the items that have had responses scribbled.
I think richard's suggestions to treat old items differently are
impractical, unreasonable, and unfair to people who have a lot of old
responses. I also wish he wouldn't keep repeating the same argument in
every item. We get it, already.
|
richard
|
|
response 56 of 357:
|
Jan 10 21:31 UTC 2004 |
gull, how it is UNFAIR to people who have a lot of old responses to suggest
that those responses be protected from being taken out of context? And if
you don't want me to keep making the same argument, then stop posting that
you disagree with me. You want to drag this out fine. You want to let it
be fine. Its up to you.
|
naftee
|
|
response 57 of 357:
|
Jan 10 22:15 UTC 2004 |
Wow, that first sentence is quite...the sentence.
|
janc
|
|
response 58 of 357:
|
Jan 10 22:20 UTC 2004 |
Well, we could "protect responses from being taken out of context" by
deleting the entire item. (smiley face, OK?) The idea that everything
a person says has to be kept on display forever in context to preserve
freedom of speech is an interesting. In fact, when the moment has
passed, so has most of the context.
But getting to the point of this item....
I disagree strongly that this is an inappropriate subject for a member
vote. Many people here seem to want their rules simple and absolute.
We make a rule, and we stick by it, without even taking into
consideration whether certain rare circumstances make the enforcement of
the rule pointless or harmful. Grex's system of laws is minimalist. It
consists of a very few written rules that weren't really very carefully
written, and some unwritten rules that are even more vague. What JEP
wants is in violation of a rule that has never been formally written,
that at least a few people heavily involved in the system didn't know
existed.
In the real world, we have a very complete set of very carefully written
laws. And you know, they aren't enforced in a totally rigid and
absolute way. We routinely find cases where the rules seem to conflict,
where different considerations seem to come to bear on the situation.
We have a system of courts that can deal with those, where everything
that seems to bear on the case can be presented, where the arguments pro
and con can be weighed, and where a hopefully consistant and sensible
interpretation of how the rules should be applied in different cases can
be set forth.
Grex lacks any such thing as a court. We have before us a situation
that will likely never be exactly repeated. We don't need a policy to
say what Grex should do when a particular sort of item is deleted by a
rogue staffer. That would be pointless. What we need to do is to
decide what to do in this specific case. To make the specific
situation, there are two ways it could be done. The board could make
it, or the membership could make it. I think the membership is the
better choice.
That's why I suggested this to JEP. When I did so, I suggested that he
keep it very narrow. Just about his two items. Not about Valerie's
items. Not about general policy. I thought it would be useful to make
a decision on a specific case without having to worry about what we
should do in all other vaguely similar cases. That gets the most
emotionally charged issue off the table and allows us to consider what
our general policy should be in a calmer manner, if any changes in
general policy are actually need.
The only precident it sets is that it says that when people think that
for some reason there general policies of grex are inappropriate in
their specific cases for specific reasons, then this can be used as a
mechanism to make an exception. I don't see anything wrong with that.
|
gull
|
|
response 59 of 357:
|
Jan 10 23:28 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:56: I think it's unfair to people to tell them that just
because of when they came here and started posting stuff, they're not
allowed to scribble their responses. I think this is far *more* unfair
than the minor risk that someone else's response will look odd out of
context.
|
gull
|
|
response 60 of 357:
|
Jan 10 23:31 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:58: But wouldn't a yes vote on this proposal suggest that people
supported removing individual items in general? That's one thing that
concerns me. If this passes, it lends a lot more legitimacy to the idea
of removing whole items in general, whether or not it sets a formal
precident.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 61 of 357:
|
Jan 11 02:08 UTC 2004 |
Items should not be removed. Individuals should be able to scribble their
responses. The "context" argument is extremely weak. This is not complicated
stuff, people.
|
jp2
|
|
response 62 of 357:
|
Jan 11 02:11 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 63 of 357:
|
Jan 11 04:16 UTC 2004 |
If this proposal comes to a member vote, it will be phrased as an
exception to other rules which might exist. I am asking the users to
grant me a special case exemption from the rule (if one exists) that
an individual cannot ask for an item to be removed. My reasons for
special treatment are stated in resp:1.
I am not trying to change or set any policy. This proposal is not a
change in policy.
|
cross
|
|
response 64 of 357:
|
Jan 11 04:17 UTC 2004 |
It is the implicit condonment of Valerie's actions that a yes vote on
this issue would represent that worries me (as it worries gull). However,
in fairness to jep, I think the items can remain retired if the original
participants in the threads agree that they would scribble their responses
if asked. If there were a few holdouts, their responses could be restored.
I think the result would be sufficiently devoid of context so as to
asuague jep's fears about what he wrote coming back to bite him.
|
jep
|
|
response 65 of 357:
|
Jan 11 05:15 UTC 2004 |
re resp:64: Retired, as in applying a Picospan "retire" command, Dan?
I could do that with any item I've ever entered, including this one,
but it doesn't prevent anyone from reading anything by itself.
Let's look at what else you're proposing. Obviously, at the very
minimum, I will not be leaving any of my responses in those items.
(Or I could review all of my responses and exclude the individual ones
I don't want, but I don't think I want to do that.)
Before the items are to be restored, presumably, someone is going to
clean out any responses of any other users who agree to have theirs
removed as well. That means all of those people have to be contacted
by someone -- before the items are restored, right? -- and given the
opportunity to exclude their responses, too. Do they all get to
review what they wrote before they decide whether it's to be restored?
Who's going to handle all of that? One of the staff, which has
already lost two members in the last few weeks? Me? Who?
I'd have to ask you to make your proposal a separate proposal, by the
way. I'm certainly not proposing anything like what you said.
|
jp2
|
|
response 66 of 357:
|
Jan 11 14:19 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 67 of 357:
|
Jan 11 15:00 UTC 2004 |
A "yes" vote does NOT condone Valerie's actions. The items should not have
been deleted in the way that they were.
Now that they have been deleted, though, they should NOT be restored.
Approving this proposal may set a precedent, but the precedent will be quickly
made moot, but an explicit change in policy. It will not be possible to
argue, "He got to, so I should be able to, too," because of all the argument
around this issue: It is very clear to any reasonable person (and we don't
worry about unreasonable ones) that this *is* an exception, in an
exceptional situation.
|
tod
|
|
response 68 of 357:
|
Jan 11 15:19 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 69 of 357:
|
Jan 11 15:21 UTC 2004 |
Because restoring them gives them more attention than they deserve.
|
jp2
|
|
response 70 of 357:
|
Jan 11 15:31 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 71 of 357:
|
Jan 11 15:59 UTC 2004 |
Restore them minus her comments.
|
cross
|
|
response 72 of 357:
|
Jan 11 16:38 UTC 2004 |
Regarding #65; No, not as in the Picospan retire command. I meant retire
in the sense that the items (or, rather, the responses) are currently gone.
And I think that you should take the responsibility of asking whomever you
feel is appropriate for permission to scribble their responses.
If jp2 is the only person who wants his comments restored, I'm willing to
bet the result will be pretty obscure; certainly so much so that no harm
from its existance on grex could befall you or your son. And yes, nothing
would be put back in place until all responses which are going to be
scribbled are.
|
polygon
|
|
response 73 of 357:
|
Jan 11 16:47 UTC 2004 |
Re 67. I agree and also endorse a "yes" vote on this as a means of
granting an exception in an exceptional situation.
|
naftee
|
|
response 74 of 357:
|
Jan 11 20:45 UTC 2004 |
I agree entirely with responses #61 and #62.
|
willcome
|
|
response 75 of 357:
|
Jan 11 20:59 UTC 2004 |
You agree with disingenously complicating argued issues to win?
|
richard
|
|
response 76 of 357:
|
Jan 11 22:24 UTC 2004 |
I posted in these items, I would like my posts restored. I believe I posted
in good faith that the only one who would ever remove or alter my words, would
be me. I think granting JEP an exception would only show that staff is more
concerned with his rights than with the rights of every other user. It won't
kill JEP to have to go back and scribble his own posts in those items. It
is what he should have done in the first place instead of asking Valerie to
delete the items entirely.
I would ask that if staff does not restore these items, that they make the
original text of the item available by email to all those who participated
in the items, so that they may make a decision on their own as to whether to
re-post their words, only their words, in another item or another conference.
I believe that had proper notice been given that these items were to be
deleted, we'd have had the opportunity to copy our posts in those items and
save them, or re-post them in a different context.
|