response 88 of 393:

Jan 7 03:49 UTC 2004

Quit talking to your right hand.

response 90 of 393:

Jan 7 04:00 UTC 2004

Neither has her husband.

response 94 of 393:

Jan 7 04:42 UTC 2004

re 93 Hey, some of us actually care if the staff members abuse the system and
their users.  But wait, since being an abusive staff member is the norm for
you, I guess you trying to push the matter off means that we're doing the
right thing.

response 96 of 393:

Jan 7 05:12 UTC 2004

Wow, you guys have too much time on your hands (all of you).  So do I.
Actually, I don't, but I'm slacking right now so it's all right.

My 2c: You can't unring a bell, and you shouldn't be able to unsay
something you've said.  People need to take responsibility for their
words, even if they're in a public forum.  People also need to realize
that *because* they're in a public forum, it's not only possible but
highly probable that someone with an ax to grind will say something
nasty about what they've written.  It's too bad, but that's the way
it is and the price we pay for our freedom of expression.  Therefore,
I don't think authors should be able to delete their items, even if no
one else has responded.

But, that's just my opinion.

I do fear that grex is stepping dangerously close to censorship in
its grossest form: deleting text of others because you don't like what
they say.  If that happens, I *really* _will_ quit staff and grex in
all its forms.  Freedom of speech is just too important to me; it's
the cornerstone of the country grex is hosted in, and it's under attack
constantly (including in the United States Senate and Congress), and the
first thing I learned in high school journalism class is that as soon as
you start down that slippery slope, no matter how good your intentions
are, you can't pull yourself back up.  It's also the thing that makes me
*want* to support grex.  If it goes by a formal vote of the membership,
then I'll consider grex's mission compromised, its commitment inauthentic,
and I'll go, too.

response 98 of 393:

Jan 7 06:21 UTC 2004

I don't think it's that you couldn't do it before, but that the text
still showed up in the censored log, and people objected to the idea of
being able to delete their text without it really disappearing.

The situation right now maybe isn't perfect, but it's workable.
People have the right to delete their own text.  Okay.  I'm not sure
I agree, but since the capability is there I've made use of it myself.
What I object to is extending that power to include the text of others.
In an ideal world, we probably wouldn't have that ability.  But in an
ideal world, no one's feelings would ever get hurt, so it'd be a moot
point as far as this is concerned.

response 100 of 393:

Jan 7 06:38 UTC 2004

I would be glad to give Valerie permission to delete all my entries on those
items.  The items were -diaries- that she allowed other people to read and
(sometimes, when the items weren't frozen) comment on.  

We are not talking about censorship here.  Valerie didn't remove posts that
she disagreed with.  In fact, it would be pretty hilarious if we could edit
and reenter only mynxcat, jp2,  and the other complainors' posts.  Then
everyone could see how meaningless this attack is.  

We're not talking about throttling free speech either.  anyone is welcome to
start an item to talk about any issue they like.  Valerie didn't keep anyone
from starting new items.  

Any FW of a conference could do what Valerie did; it doesn't require
extraordinary root powers.  

Attacking Valerie is stupid.  What we are grappling with here is our
ever-present balancing act between you-can't-unring-a-bell and the ability
to make amends in some fashion if what you said in an item was something you'd
like to remove from the public record.  Not make people forget, just remove
the words from public display.  

We voted to allow everyone to make that decision for themselves.

The whole thing would be within our policies and non-controversial if Valerie
eliminated all her responses, and those of us who agreed with her eliminated
ours.  We could let mynxcat's immortal words remain on display, along with
anyone else who thought their contribution to the descriptions of Kendra and
Arlo's development processes was significant.  

If Valerie were the conf fairwitness, she could have done this without
violating any Grex principles.  The only real policy violation came when she
did it herself, without having the FW involved in the decision.  

Give it a break.  Troublemakers are stirring the pot again.  We are rehashing
the same issues of "permanently engraved versus able to be erased"  

I think we have come to a reasonable balance by allowing scribbled to be truly
hidden, and allowing FWs to make decisions on an item-by-item basis.  

If people want to remake either of those decisions, then let's discuss the
policies.  If people want to cause a fuss, then don't pretend it's some big
personal affront or some heroic support of freedom of speech.  Fuss about the
policies we have.  Because Valerie's actions were all allowable under current
policy.  

response 102 of 393:

Jan 7 06:50 UTC 2004

Just for the record, I wouldn't be so sure there *aren't* copies
floating around.  I don't know if anyone did (and I don't have one),
but as you know, it would have been technically possible for anyone on
grex to create a copy if they really wanted to, and there are probably
still copies on backup tape.  I always take the position that anything
I write on the net will never go away.  I've already given up any hope
of attaining an elected position as a result.  :-)

response 104 of 393:

Jan 7 11:37 UTC 2004

I don't have a lot of time to respond right now, so I'll just reiterate
what I said earlier:  Valerie's earlier assertion to the contrary
notwithstanding, it has NEVER been Grex policy to allow authors to
delete their own items.  Had it ever been proposed as a policy, I would
have opposed it, on the grounds that it grants people censorship rights 
over OTHER PEOPLE'S WORDS.  I feel that that is contrary to the free
speech principles that Grex supposedly stands for.

I'm very much in agreement with Dan Cross's #96.

response 108 of 393:

Jan 7 13:55 UTC 2004

Yes, I do.

response 110 of 393:

Jan 7 14:32 UTC 2004

Re resp:99:
"Well... actually any discussion of changing PicoSpan is moot, since
there's no legal way we could get changes made to it, because of the way
its ownership is all tangled up with the collapse of the Vancouver stock
exchange and NETI and whatever all else."

That doesn't mean the subject is moot.  It could be implemented in
Backtalk, or someone could create an external command (much like the
"export" command.)  Either one would give users the same right you've
already claimed for yourself -- the ability to delete their items at
will, without having to offer a reason to anyone else or beg a staff member.