|
Grex > Coop13 > #106: Understanding the Undulating Undeletion Proposals | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 157 responses total. |
cyklone
|
|
response 76 of 157:
| 
Feb 7 01:12 UTC 2004 |
Very well put tod. I certainly *thought* I was part of the community when I
was posting to jep's item. But here on the animal farm, some members of the
community are more equal than others.
|
tod
|
|
response 77 of 157:
|
Feb 7 01:15 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 78 of 157:
|
Feb 7 01:17 UTC 2004 |
In #69 you say "So what if my advice is gone tomorrow? I'm not writing
for generations to come. I'm writing today, for the use of a particular
person who is in a particular situation. If I want to ensure that my
profound thinking is available in perpetuity, Grex items are a pretty weak
way to do it.
You are making yet another value judgment to justify censorship.
Reasonable minds can disagree as who they are writing for and for how
long. You may think grex is a weak way to perpetuate "profound thinking"
but some of us who were writing about the problems of a grexer and for a
grexer (as well as for other users of grex) obviously believe grex is one
of the *MOST* appropriate place for our words to reside.
|
tod
|
|
response 79 of 157:
|
Feb 7 01:19 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 80 of 157:
|
Feb 7 01:30 UTC 2004 |
I have lots of doubt about that, tod.
|
jp2
|
|
response 81 of 157:
|
Feb 7 01:36 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 82 of 157:
|
Feb 7 01:43 UTC 2004 |
It's time to shut up, jp2.
Really and truly.
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 83 of 157:
|
Feb 7 01:44 UTC 2004 |
It should, of course, be known that Grex has repeatedly refused to allow me
to delete even my own posts.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 84 of 157:
|
Feb 7 01:48 UTC 2004 |
I *know* the motions are not about the words of jep and valerie; they are
about the words of others added to the items created by jep and valerie.
I've been very clear that I think item authors have the right, and should
have the capability, to remove the items they create, in toto, explicitly
including words others have written.
However, I've also been convinced such was not the situation on grex at
the time valerie deleted the items. I've also been convinced to entertain
the notion that such should never be the situation on grex.
This discussion will inform future decisions people make, about their
votes, about the text they enter here, and about where grex goes from here.
|
naftee
|
|
response 85 of 157:
|
Feb 7 02:10 UTC 2004 |
Clearly however, this entire discussion should be completely ignored, since
it was really started by my item, and it is well known that I am a GreX
SYSTEM_ABUSER. Never mind the core issue. It's the PEOPLE that matter.
|
keesan
|
|
response 86 of 157:
|
Feb 7 02:46 UTC 2004 |
I think it would also be considerate of jep's ex-wife to delete all mention
of her from grex. Both of them acted rather immaturely and they probably
don't want the details immortalized.
|
jp2
|
|
response 87 of 157:
|
Feb 7 02:49 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 88 of 157:
|
Feb 7 03:05 UTC 2004 |
Ignore her, she doesn't read people's responses.
|
naftee
|
|
response 89 of 157:
|
Feb 7 03:05 UTC 2004 |
That, by the way, is immature.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 90 of 157:
|
Feb 7 03:32 UTC 2004 |
I think that this comes down to several different interpretations of what Grex
is to its users and the assumptions that they were using the system under.
I certainly -- before this discussion -- never realized that people actually
read old items, and I never thought of discussions being archived for the
ages. To me, agora/various cfs in various incarnations were current
discussions, which were fun and informative while on-going, but I'd never go
back and re-read it once the current discussion was done. I thought of it as
a conversation more than publishing -- fleeting and impermanent. Obviously,
this informs how I see the current vote -- I don't feel as if it's such a big
deal because (at least in jep's case, and in valerie's old diaries) the items
were closed long ago (a few years, right?) and the discussion was over. I
think that this is not the way everyone sees it, but some of us do (I'm
agreeing with keesan, at least. Amazing!). Also, since to me it's a
conversation more than "writing", I don't feel this attachment to my words.
I wrote them, yes, but they aren't something I have my ego attached to, in
the same way that I do things that I write for publication or that I write
with the intent of having people read them (as in essays, etc.) I write my
postings in the best way I can, and I try to make them clear and legible, but
they aren't agonized over and polished and "written" in the same way that I
write for publication.
I do realize that other people have other viewpoints, but you must realize
that my viewpoint is as valid as yours -- my Grex is also a valid Grex. I
think that people are getting into "one true wayism" here, and it's got to
stop if we're going to build a Grex that everyone will still be comfortable
with.
I know that I will never post anything beyond the most trivial and most fluffy
details of my life on this system again. I won't share who I am, or what I
would like to have help with, or details of my past that might shine light
on another's problems, since I don't like being made fun of, as I was in the
"agora" parody cf. on M-net. I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. I don't
think it was funny and I really resent the fallout from it (Valerie's reaction
and Jep's sudden desire to have his divorce items removed among other things).
I resent the fact that some people are apparently so lacking in empathy that
they can say "it's only pixels. it's only the internet" when people do very
clearly do find these pixels to be communication and ways to reach out to
other people. I resent some people insisting that obviously everything needs
to stay online forever because otherwise there will be no free speech. I feel
as if I can't share anything terribly personal anymore, because there's no
community here. And that's very sad.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 91 of 157:
|
Feb 7 04:00 UTC 2004 |
While you may believe you had a valid interpretation of what Grex was, I am
still puzzled as to how you could confuse a *bulletin board system*, which
implies a public posting of information for public consumption, with some
sort of private party line you share for conversations with your friends.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 92 of 157:
|
Feb 7 04:10 UTC 2004 |
It's really not that hard to do, cyklone. You meet lots of the people whose
responses you have read, and just forget that others are reading, too.
People are strange.
|
naftee
|
|
response 93 of 157:
|
Feb 7 04:35 UTC 2004 |
re 90
> I resent some people insisting that obviously everything needs
> to stay online forever because otherwise there will be no free speech.
That was never said. Please leave it alone.
> because there's no community here.
Ask yourself what happened.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 94 of 157:
|
Feb 7 04:57 UTC 2004 |
LET ME TRY!
Once upon a time there were two tribes. The mnet tribe was a bunch of
foul-mouthed party animals who enjoyed hot cars, hot women, hip hop, punk rock
and other loud pleasures.
The grex tribe was formed when some of the more introverted mnetters, who
much prefered bicycles, gardening, folk music, classical music and other
quieter pastimes, set out to create a life of their own.
Because of family connections, and the periodic reunions forced by
equipment failure, the tribes had fairly regular interactions.
Some of the mnet tribe would make humorous comments about the grexers.
Some of the grex tribe would make snide comments about the mnetters.
THE END
|
aruba
|
|
response 95 of 157:
|
Feb 7 05:22 UTC 2004 |
Re #68: Saying "I want people to feel free to say what they want here"
is "positively Orwellian"? Huh? Are you saying that's not what you
want? Or are you saying that because I interpret what free speech is
differently that you do, then I am trying to exert mind control over
people?
Free speech is *not* as simple as "Anyone can say whatever they want,
wherever they want, however they want, and it will be preserved
forever." You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You can't paint
a message on the street and expect it to last forever. You can't
make threatening phone calls.
The reason you can't do these things is that we have agreed, as a
society, to balance the good of the whole against the freedom of the
individual. If that's Orwellian, well, tell it to Oliver Wendell
Holmes.
Mary asks: if we make this exception for jep and valerie, then where
do we draw the line in the future? I think it is a very good
question. And a hard one. But just because it's hard doesn't mean we
can't address it. And it certainly doesn't mean we *shouldn't*
address it. We shouldn't say, "Oh, it's too hard to balance people's
feelings against our principles of allowing free speech. Therefore,
we are forced to not value people's feelings at all, because it's too
hard." That's a copout.
cyklone "maintains" a lot of things in #69 - let's see if I can
address some of them. He seems to make have a big problem with value
judgements. Apparently, he thinks we should all be able to get
through life without them. He is correct that voting against Jamie's
proposal and for jep's involves making a value judgement that the harm
done by restoring the items is greater than the harm done by leaving
them deleted.
I am not calling for an "earthshaking change" in Grex's operation.
Nor am I saying people should "have the power to remove any words
anyone else may right (sic) about those deepest fears and thoughts".
I am saying that we, as a community, ought to be willing to make an
exception to our general policies when we feel there is a good reason
for it. Of course this involves making value judgements. Of course
any such system is imperfect. But, in my opinion, it's better than
the alternative.
In general, smaller organizatons need less rigid rules than large
ones. To take an extreme example, all of us individuals have rules
for ourselves, but almost everyone violates their rules from time to
time, and it's not the end of the world. This is normal and good. If
you made yourself a rule about your diet, and then a month later your
Mom makes your favorite dessert when you're visiting, it would hurt
her feelings and yours not to eat it. So you break your rule, and
nothing tragic happens. It doesn't mean you will begin binge eating
every night. It was better to break it than not to break it.
The same is true for families - they have rules which sometimes get
broken, and no one dies as a result. But the bigger an organization
gets, the harder it is to be flexible about rules. When you get to the
size of a large corporation or a government, most people agree that
you have to have rigid rules, otherwise people will choose to exploit
them. Why is that, exactly? I think it's because, in a very large
organization, people's attachment and committment to the organization
is generally weaker than in a small one. People feel insignificant
and weak compared to a large organization, and as a result, some of
them feel little sense of responsibilityand attachment toward it.
Grex is somewhere in between a family and a large organization. But
it's a lot closer to a family. And I think on Grex we don't have to
make rigid rules and always be bound by them. I think there are a lot
of people who see that as the only way to run any kind of
organization, and they want Grex to fit into that mold no matter what.
Some of them, like Jamie, want that so they can manipulate the system.
Other people just can't imagine anything without a lot of rigid rules.
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 96 of 157:
|
Feb 7 05:54 UTC 2004 |
Am I allowed to cough, though?
|
scott
|
|
response 97 of 157:
|
Feb 7 05:57 UTC 2004 |
Re #56 (albough)... So if Grex is to be run loosely, with little explicit
rules, somehow Grex has to have an explicit rule saying so?
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 98 of 157:
|
Feb 7 06:01 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 99 of 157:
|
Feb 7 13:02 UTC 2004 |
I don't think of myself as a rule-bound person, Mark. But I do see being
flexible in this specific area as a place Grex doesn't want to go.
y
|
remmers
|
|
response 100 of 157:
|
Feb 7 14:17 UTC 2004 |
Wow, stay away from Coop for a day or two and look how the text piles up.
In just this one item, even.
Having read it all, I'm convinced that restoring the items is the correct
thing to do, so I'm not going to change my original votes (yes on A, no
on B). I don't have much to add to the discussion, as all the points I
would have made have already been made by others, pretty much. So I'll
just say that I'm substantially in agreement with mary, cyklone, igorvh,
jmsaul. Maybe others whom I'm forgetting at the moment.
One thing that folks who feel passionately about the issue, on either
side, should keep in mind is that this thing is being voted on. With
an issue like this, there are diehards in both camps whose minds aren't
going to be changed no matter what. But the diehards aren't the ones
who are going to be deciding this, so it's the swing votes that you
have to win over to your side. And people tend to be put off by
tactics such as bullying, hectoring, threats, and name-calling. Too
much of that, and you risk changing the referendum into a referendum
about you. I can think of one person in particular who -- assuming that
he sincerely cares about the issue and isn't using it so satisfy some
obsessive need to be center-stage -- should adjust his style.
|