You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   40-64   65-89   90-114   115-139   140-164   165-189   190-214 
 215-235          
 
Author Message
25 new of 235 responses total.
robh
response 65 of 235: Mark Unseen   Feb 10 21:10 UTC 2004

Re 57 - Not particularly, but thanks for asking, bully.
gull
response 66 of 235: Mark Unseen   Feb 11 03:57 UTC 2004

I think resp:64 is right in that a policy isn't needed to protect 
against valerie's original deletion.  No policy is going to save you 
from rogue staff.  What we do need is a policy that can address the 
situation jep's request got us in.  His item's deletion created a 
situation where it appears users have a right to request that their 
items be removed by staff.  We need a policy if we want to settle 
whether or not that's the case.
albaugh
response 67 of 235: Mark Unseen   Feb 11 21:19 UTC 2004

From what little I've read, I'm not sure that anyone else with staff / cfadm
capabilities would have unilaterally acted on jep's request the way that
valerie did.  Thus I don't have a great fear if no policy allowing item
deletion by request is passed - without a policy, it's not likely to happen.
gull
response 68 of 235: Mark Unseen   Feb 11 21:31 UTC 2004

But it leaves us in a situation where we have no way of explaining why
jep's items were deleted, but items that (for example) jp2 asks to be
deleted are not.  "We have a policy now" is a pretty good explanation.
jp2
response 69 of 235: Mark Unseen   Feb 11 21:50 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

naftee
response 70 of 235: Mark Unseen   Feb 11 22:27 UTC 2004

I have asked too and all people do is make fun of me :(
gelinas
response 71 of 235: Mark Unseen   Feb 12 00:42 UTC 2004

No, we don't have a "policy."  We _do_ have a "sense of the community"
that items should not be deleted Just Because the item author asks for it.
In fact, even valerie admitted as much, when she didn't delete jp2's
item 39, as he requested.  Since she has been the only staff member to
delete items on that ground, it seems fairly obvious to me that, in the
absence of a membership vote explicitly establishing a policy of "delete
on request of item author," it's not going to happen again.

I would, for future reference, prefer to have a clearer sense of the
community.  'Twould probably be best 'twere a policy or membership proposal.
tod
response 72 of 235: Mark Unseen   Feb 12 00:44 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

jp2
response 73 of 235: Mark Unseen   Feb 12 01:04 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

cmcgee
response 74 of 235: Mark Unseen   Feb 12 01:26 UTC 2004

No. Every current staff member is aware that deleting an item on request is
-not- a policy that everyone agrees to, that in fact it would lead to a hue
and cry in Coop.  
jp2
response 75 of 235: Mark Unseen   Feb 12 01:30 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

naftee
response 76 of 235: Mark Unseen   Feb 12 01:48 UTC 2004

Look at the obvious:

If item deletion per request were never a staff policy, why was that specific
event brought to a vote?

Please answer that.
jp2
response 77 of 235: Mark Unseen   Feb 12 02:41 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

scott
response 78 of 235: Mark Unseen   Feb 12 03:37 UTC 2004

It was brought to a vote because jp2 seems to find it amusing.
jp2
response 79 of 235: Mark Unseen   Feb 12 13:47 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

rational
response 80 of 235: Mark Unseen   Feb 12 13:54 UTC 2004

slip.
gull
response 81 of 235: Mark Unseen   Feb 12 14:26 UTC 2004

I'm getting really tired of jp2 and cyklone insisting they should be
able to dictate Grex policy to the rest of us.
jp2
response 82 of 235: Mark Unseen   Feb 12 14:28 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

naftee
response 83 of 235: Mark Unseen   Feb 12 15:09 UTC 2004

re 81 And what makes you think your ideas of GreX policy our 'better'?  In
fact, they're worse!  You've already gotten rid of two upstanding users.
cyklone
response 84 of 235: Mark Unseen   Feb 12 17:44 UTC 2004

Re #81: And I'm getting really tired of having my words misstated by people
like you and jep.
tod
response 85 of 235: Mark Unseen   Feb 12 18:41 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

iggy
response 86 of 235: Mark Unseen   Feb 12 19:28 UTC 2004

I still don't understand the US vs THEM point that gull professes in
nearly every response.  It would be easier to understand his point
if he clarified what he means.
gull
response 87 of 235: Mark Unseen   Feb 12 19:34 UTC 2004

Re resp:85: If you don't like the way Grex is run, why do you have an
account here?  It seems to me like you're only here to make trouble. 
Just like jp2, who is such a poor loser he's copy-and-pasted responses
to a large number of items in agora about how he's afraid his posts will
get scribbled.

I'm sick of the conference crapfloods, pointless policy debates, staff
abuse, and endless backbiting and carping that a certain group of
M-Netters come here to cause.  I tolerated it for a while, and I even
supported some of jp2's arguments when I thought he was genuinely
interested in improving things.  But it's gradually become obvious to me
that, like naftee, he's just interested in making trouble.  His methods
are just more cleverly disguised.

I can only assume this is just some kind of sick game for you people.
jp2
response 88 of 235: Mark Unseen   Feb 12 19:46 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

tod
response 89 of 235: Mark Unseen   Feb 12 19:54 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

 0-24   25-49   40-64   65-89   90-114   115-139   140-164   165-189   190-214 
 215-235          
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss