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.

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.

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. 

response 103 of 184:

Feb 2 22:56 UTC 2004

Re #86: I see know evidence that grex is in the process of determining when
it is appropriate to personal favors for favored persons. So far all I am
seeing is an adhocracy in which anyone can make a proposal and allow a vote,
no matter how ridiculous the requests. As mary correctly notes, you *are*
setting a precedent and I have not seen one substantive discussion of how this
will be treated as a precedent and whether future requests will be via the
same process.

At the very least, it seems to me the standard should be that the
"default" is that users control their own words. Certainly that has been
the general rule in the past. To create an exception to that principle
there should be some sort of criteria to be met to justify the exception.

In case ya'll haven't noticed, I have asked for good reasons to jusitify
the exceptions. I've asked jep to point me to old posts of his where his
thoughts are explained coherently. He hasn't done so. He has said it has
nothing to do with legal implications. He says he wished a similar item
was available to him. He says he doesn't want to have to explain anything
to his son. As I mentioned elsewhere, that cat is out of the bag. His son
will end up finding these coop items instead. Nor has *ANYONE* addressed
my scenario in which a drug addict, sex addict, etc. could post an
extremely helpful and informative item on addiction and then claim it
should be deleted based on jep's selfish "I don't want my son to know"
precedent. Such a precedent is incredibly damaging to grex.


And it would be nice if jep and some of his supporters could argue
honestly about this. It is not honest to say the deleted posts of others
have little or no value when jep himself wished such an item existed
before. And no one has argued for an absolute inflexible "principle".
The rules against posting credit card numbers are one example. So ditch
the red herrings and start talking about on what grounds you will
recognize exceptional requests for deleting the words of others.  What
criteria should be applied? Don't kid yourselves. This is ALL about
precedent.

response 107 of 184:

Feb 3 01:15 UTC 2004

Re #103: "know" sb "no"

Thank you md for finally getting to the heart of what many are avoiding.
Not all of your examples are easy choices, although my view generally is
that no one puts a gun to a poster's head and forces them to write someone
else's words. #1 is the only one that jumps out at me, although there are
maybe one or two others I could change my mind on.

I also like that much of what md used for examples is similar to what has
already been posted here. Yet there was no big outcry to delete them.

response 109 of 184:

Feb 3 01:35 UTC 2004

I think posting credit card numbers to facilitate theft is
quite illegal.  The police might want to know about that one.

But first let me try it out on ebay. ;-)

The rest have pretty much been done to death here, with slight
variations.  They rate a yawn.

response 111 of 184:

Feb 3 02:31 UTC 2004

Re 99:  Grex is in the process of determining whether it is appropriate to
remove other people's text _at all_ (except for certain obvious exceptions
mentioned above, like credit card numbers).

The arguments presented above and elsewhere are interesting and useful,
but the real answer is going to be in the vote.  If, as I expect, jp2's
proposal passes and jep's fails, then the precedent will be established
that what Valerie did should not be repeated.  If jp2's proposal fails,
then and only then will there be a precedent for removing items.  If jep's
proposal passes, there _may_ be a precedent for special favours.  However,
the special circumstances that allowed the removal in the first place
aren't likely to be repeated: 'twould require a staff member with the
knowledge to act as she did but without the knowledge of this discussion.

As jep has noted, a public discussion of his request would have made
his request moot: it would have guaranteed the items' preservation and
could conceivably have resulted in their reposting in entirety, under
somebody else's name.  Retiring the items first would not have helped:
"set noforget" overrules "retire".  So there will never again be the
opportunity to do this special favour.

response 113 of 184:

Feb 3 03:04 UTC 2004

I disagree: 'staff' won't delete items on request.  If staff _would_ delete
items on request, Item 39 would have been long gone from this conference.
That it has NOT been removed is evidence that your premise is false.

response 117 of 184:

Feb 3 12:34 UTC 2004

Right, Mary; but jep's request was for the removal of _all_ of the text,
his as well as others'.  Had he simply wanted his own text removed,
there would have been no need for public discussion at all.