|
Grex > Coop13 > #111: A Proposal to Clarify Grex's Stance on Deleting Items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 235 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 90 of 235:
| 
Feb 12 20:26 UTC 2004 |
Yeah, and I remember when we were having "meaningful policy debates"
with M-Netters about whether or not it was legal to photocopy driver's
licenses.
The free speech arguments would be meaningful if they weren't so
obviously just another example of a pattern that involves, for example,
arguments about whether it's a "violation of free speech" for some of
naftee's accounts to be locked for trying to fill up agora with large
text files.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 91 of 235:
|
Feb 12 20:38 UTC 2004 |
jp2, you are just so tiresome now. Read this carefully: valerie did
something most peole didn't like. But it was done. staff have no history
of restoring stuff due to vandalism, so it was not their duty to "hop to it"
and restore the killed items. A vote by the membership to compell that
failed. valerie's unauthorized act does not set a precedent that other staff
will use to justify similar rogue acts, even if the items are not restored.
Further, all this does not establish a grex policy of censorship.
I know it it is useless to say it, but I will anyway: Give it up, move on.
|
kip
|
|
response 92 of 235:
|
Feb 12 21:01 UTC 2004 |
Joe, re: 49, in 47 I was wondering about 46. :)
It has become painfully obvious to me that nothing will change Jamie's mind
in regard to the supposed precedent that Valerie's actions have caused.
I don't read the two votes here as stating that items can now be deleted on
request anymore than I would imagine all Grex users hated the color red if
a vote was passed saying apples and strawberries were not everyone's favorite
fruits.
So I'll just try to respectfully agree to disagree with Jamie's interpretation
of the events of the past month.
|
jp2
|
|
response 93 of 235:
|
Feb 12 21:04 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
kip
|
|
response 94 of 235:
|
Feb 12 21:21 UTC 2004 |
Fair enough, an excellent point. Please allow me to rephrase in this way:
I don't see the precedent of Valerie's actions precipitating a new implied
policy of deleting entire items at the author's request.
My dictionary suggested this for precedent:
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:
Precedent \Prec"e*dent\, n.
1. Something done or said that may serve as an example to
authorize a subsequent act of the same kind; an
authoritative example.
[1913 Webster]
I don't view her actions as a valid precedent. I understand and respect
that you do view them as valid precedent.
|
jp2
|
|
response 95 of 235:
|
Feb 12 21:31 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
kip
|
|
response 96 of 235:
|
Feb 12 21:46 UTC 2004 |
I don't think the threat is meaningless. I feel rather certain that if I
decided to unilaterally delete entire items that I would be dismissed from
staff rather quickly and that the items would be restored.
My opinion is that the vote said we're not going to retroactively restore this
first time, but staff had better not go around doing this anymore.
|
jp2
|
|
response 97 of 235:
|
Feb 12 21:53 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 98 of 235:
|
Feb 12 21:57 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
kip
|
|
response 99 of 235:
|
Feb 12 22:00 UTC 2004 |
Sorry, I've often been accused of not being logical. I'm just informing you
of what my opinion on the matter is.
Remember, Grex isn't a game of Nomic and it certainly isn't Constitutional
Law. :)
|
tod
|
|
response 100 of 235:
|
Feb 12 22:11 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
kip
|
|
response 101 of 235:
|
Feb 12 22:12 UTC 2004 |
tod slipped. The votes said 37 members decided that the items in question
were not to be restored. I don't see anywhere in the votes where it said the
staff has no problem with censorship. I will not make the same leap you did
to that conclusion.
|
tod
|
|
response 102 of 235:
|
Feb 12 22:19 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
kip
|
|
response 103 of 235:
|
Feb 12 22:23 UTC 2004 |
as only one member of the staff and a junior one at that, I didn't act because
Valerie's actions were unprecedented and I hadn't a clue about the proper way
to deal with them.
Perhaps Grex will have to raise the bar for staff members to those having law
degrees and Supreme Court clerking experience to understand all the
ramifications of censorship and free speech.
I didn't know what to do and I looked to the membership and the discussions
taking place.
|
tod
|
|
response 104 of 235:
|
Feb 12 22:31 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 105 of 235:
|
Feb 12 22:32 UTC 2004 |
You did just fine, kip
|
naftee
|
|
response 106 of 235:
|
Feb 12 23:18 UTC 2004 |
re 90 That was polytarp.
re 101 You don't consider a staffer with root power deleting selective items
with posts by several different users an act of censorship?
If, say, a staffer were to go through and delete all of your responses without
your authority, do you consider that censorship?
|
jp2
|
|
response 107 of 235:
|
Feb 12 23:52 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 108 of 235:
|
Feb 13 00:08 UTC 2004 |
You call that subtle?
|
jp2
|
|
response 109 of 235:
|
Feb 13 00:14 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 110 of 235:
|
Feb 13 01:09 UTC 2004 |
Now _that_ is subtlety.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 111 of 235:
|
Feb 13 01:25 UTC 2004 |
Thanks, Kip. If I'd gone back a few responses when 47 was presented,
I'd probably have realised what you meant.
I take the defeat of your proposal, jp2, to mean that the *membership*
does NOT want the items restored. Staff's job is to keep the system up
and running and to do want the membership wants.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 112 of 235:
|
Feb 13 01:55 UTC 2004 |
James seems to think because staff have the technical power to act on
the policies and precedents he believes have been established, staff are
somehow dodging their responsibilities as he sees them, by not acting
as he wishes.
Staff on the other hand, collectively defer to the membership for
judgement on policy issues outside of a few well established areas
relating to the technical operation of the system.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 113 of 235:
|
Feb 13 02:29 UTC 2004 |
I think the result of the vote was a bad one on principle, but I don't see
any point in challenging its legitimacy. I do hope that should another staff
member spazz out and start killing items, Grex won't let them benefit from
their actions next time.
|
naftee
|
|
response 114 of 235:
|
Feb 13 02:31 UTC 2004 |
GUYS
SHE DIDN,T SPAZZ OUT' OR GO POSTAL%.
SHE WAS AS COOL AS ICE.
|