|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 184 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 78 of 184:
| 
Feb 2 01:23 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 79 of 184:
|
Feb 2 01:37 UTC 2004 |
We are more in agreement than you might think, twinkie.
There is no precedent. Someone did something, yes, but a substantial number
of people have agreed that doing that thing was wrong. The membership
is deciding whether that thing should be undone. However the vote goes,
though, one thing is very clear: people don't like the idea of deleting
other people's text. Even if the text is not restored, the sense of the
community has been taken: Delete Items At Your Peril.
I had occasion to ask Marcus about his philosophy and picospan. He noted
that he should eventually drop in and offer his perspective. I don't
think it is any where near as deterministic as you seem to.
|
naftee
|
|
response 80 of 184:
|
Feb 2 02:52 UTC 2004 |
Oh, so even though you *think* that most of the people (who knows, maybe
future members) are in disagreement with what jep/valerie did, you're still
going to let a small number of people who happen to have a membership now have
the only say in this matter, and then go along and say it don't mean much?
Wow, that's messed up.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 81 of 184:
|
Feb 2 03:04 UTC 2004 |
That's the way voting goes, naftee. Those eligible to make the decsion make
it.
|
naftee
|
|
response 82 of 184:
|
Feb 2 03:25 UTC 2004 |
At the expense of the bylaws and human rights?!
|
witzbolt
|
|
response 83 of 184:
|
Feb 2 03:34 UTC 2004 |
for this lowlow price.
|
naftee
|
|
response 84 of 184:
|
Feb 2 03:34 UTC 2004 |
Next they"ll be selling services!
|
cyklone
|
|
response 85 of 184:
|
Feb 2 04:03 UTC 2004 |
Gelinas says "The question is not, "Are there limits?" The question is, "What
are the limits?""
Could *someone* please answer the last question? Some on grex want to do
personal favors for favored persons but no one seems to want to answer the
obvious question. There's an elephant in the living room people. Deal with
it.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 86 of 184:
|
Feb 2 07:10 UTC 2004 |
We are in the process of answering that question, cyklone.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 87 of 184:
|
Feb 2 09:20 UTC 2004 |
re: 79
There most certainly is precedent. Otherwise, the items would have been
restored.
If polytarp or naftee found a way to start deleting items, would you hold
their restoration to a membership vote? Something tells me you'd join a chorus
of users decrying them as "vandals". (Apologies to polytarp and naftee, but
you're the bad boys du jour here)
I didn't mean to suggest that Marcus was the end-all-be-all voice of how
conferencing systems operate. Either I wasn't clear about that, or you
misinterpreted what I said. Though, I'd be quite interested in his take on
it.
|
jp2
|
|
response 88 of 184:
|
Feb 2 11:34 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 89 of 184:
|
Feb 2 13:54 UTC 2004 |
Re 87:
If polytarp or naftee found a way to delete items? First off it would depend
on whether it was items they themselves had entered, if there's to be a
comparison to Valerie's deletions. But taking a broader case... we would know
that polytarp/nagtee are indeed "bad boys", to use your term. There is
nothing in our policies or principles that says that Grex cannot have memory,
that every single case must assume that the people involved are completely
new to Grex. I suppose you'll start making the usual complaint about
"favorites" again, but again I think you are trying to prevent Grex from being
a community by insisting on rigid interpretation of (in this case) an
essential imaginary rule: that no matter how obnoxious a user becomes, they
are merely expressing "free speech".
|
gull
|
|
response 90 of 184:
|
Feb 2 14:29 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:68: I'm amused by the claim that "hundreds of people" posted to
those items, much less thousands. You make a good argument otherwise,
but rein in the hyperbole a bit. ;>
Re resp:85: No, people aren't ignoring the question. That's what the
vote's for. Also, while it can be argued that the deletion of jep's
items set a precident, there's another vote coming up that may totally
change that. That's how things work here; we vote on stuff. If you're
expecting that if you debate hard enough, you can win by fiat regardless
of how the vote comes out, you're wrong.
Re resp:87: If naftee or polytarp started deleting items, it'd mean
they'd hacked someone else's account. That's a totally different situation.
|
naftee
|
|
response 91 of 184:
|
Feb 2 15:02 UTC 2004 |
That's what you think, bad boy.
|
jep
|
|
response 92 of 184:
|
Feb 2 16:22 UTC 2004 |
re resp:76: What I was saying in resp:70 is that principles which are
so rigid and inflexible they fail to, or cannot, accommodate varying
circumstances are not good principles.
The purpose of moral principles is to guide your actions, to provide
yourself with guidelines for making better decisions and actions. If
your principles force you into taking bad actions, then your principles
are wrong. They're dysfunctional. If holding to your principles
forces you to taking actions you know to be wrong, then they're not
even principles at all. They're rules. Also, they're an inherent
problem, not any kind of solution. They may be more or less of a
problem, depending on whether they provide you with more good answers
or more bad ones.
In the case of the deleted items, I think you ought to be looking at
the amount of good done overall, versus the amount of harm. It's a
value judgement.
I tell you there has been great value to me in having my two items
deleted. I've cited some of why; I've been misquoted a lot about it
but I've given a lot of explanation.
So then, is it worth it to Grex to take that away from me? I think
that's the question a thoughtful voter has to answer.
If your answer is, "I think Grex's principles are that this sort of
thing can never be done, period", well, I guess that's your right, but
I think you're missing something.
|
slynne
|
|
response 93 of 184:
|
Feb 2 17:17 UTC 2004 |
My position on this at the moment is that the items should be restored.
It was not an easy decision for me to come by. I guess I just dont
think it is ok to give some people control over another person's words
here...even if that someone is a little asshole like jp2 and the person
who wants to do the deleting is someone I would like to give
preferential treatment to like jep.
Values dont mean anything unless they get applied to everyone equally.
With that said, I also dont think there is a problem with providing
special favors for special people so I will agree to allow either
valerie or jep to delete/scribble any posts I made in those items.
While I dont feel comfortable giving them power over other people's
words, I do feel it is appropriate to give up control over my own words
in this case.
|
jp2
|
|
response 94 of 184:
|
Feb 2 17:38 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
md
|
|
response 95 of 184:
|
Feb 2 17:40 UTC 2004 |
This might've been asked and answered already, but just so I don't have
to read the whole thing...
Why can't the items be restored, but with valerie's responses all
deleted? People delete their own responses all the time and nobody
cares.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 96 of 184:
|
Feb 2 17:43 UTC 2004 |
That's what the vote is on, md: do we restore the items Valerie deleted?
|
jp2
|
|
response 97 of 184:
|
Feb 2 18:16 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 98 of 184:
|
Feb 2 18:24 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 99 of 184:
|
Feb 2 18:49 UTC 2004 |
Try to keep up there, Michael. ;-)
Valerie doesn't just want her responses removed. She wants
everyone's responses gone because they are about her, and her
family, and her children.
John likewise doesn't want just his comments removed but those
of everyone else in the discussion, because what others have
said may hurt him in the future.
This is going to set some interesting precedent.
|
tod
|
|
response 100 of 184:
|
Feb 2 18:57 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 101 of 184:
|
Feb 2 19:01 UTC 2004 |
re: 89
What difference does it make if they hacked someone's account or not? It's not
as though Valerie had any more permission to do what she did than anyone else
had. Access != permission.
re: 90
I should have used "responses" instead of people. I doubt Grex has "hundreds"
let alone "thousands" of active BBS participants.
|
witzbolt
|
|
response 102 of 184:
|
Feb 2 20:39 UTC 2004 |
i'm ejaculating on your tits.
|