|
Grex > Coop13 > #76: member initiative: do not restore two items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 357 responses total. |
willcome
|
|
response 96 of 357:
| 
Jan 12 21:49 UTC 2004 |
jp2's and jep's spat is
SAD
|
cyklone
|
|
response 97 of 357:
|
Jan 12 21:55 UTC 2004 |
All actions have consequences. Some are unintended. Some are undesirable.
|
other
|
|
response 98 of 357:
|
Jan 12 21:59 UTC 2004 |
Some are tasty.
|
gull
|
|
response 99 of 357:
|
Jan 12 22:51 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:95: When you deliberately get a staff member to do something
that most other staff members feel is a violation of policy, I think you
can expect it to be controversial.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 100 of 357:
|
Jan 12 23:08 UTC 2004 |
John -- if you had followed Jan's advice and had the items temporarily removed
pending a membership vote, rather than taking his out-of-control wife's help
and getting them summarily deleted, you'd have a lot more friends on this
issue.
|
naftee
|
|
response 101 of 357:
|
Jan 12 23:31 UTC 2004 |
re 95 They didn't start as "attacks". They migrated.
|
jep
|
|
response 102 of 357:
|
Jan 12 23:46 UTC 2004 |
re resp:100: No one suggested to me that the items be temporarily
removed pending a member vote, until the items were already removed.
*No one* spoke to me at *any* point, other than Valerie, until *after*
the items were removed.
The Board and staff were carrying on a discussion about my request, in
which I was not included, and about which I was not even informed for a
day after I sent my request. I heard about that from Valerie as well.
Can you go over again what it was I was supposed to do in order to
retain goodwill among both the staff and membership?
I deny that I went outside of any reasonable expectation anyone could
have of "the system". My initial e-mail went to staff@grex.org. So
did my next message (after I had received not a *peep* by way of
response, from *anyone*). I worked within the system to the very best
of my ability. I'm doing so now.
|
jep
|
|
response 103 of 357:
|
Jan 12 23:57 UTC 2004 |
Whups, one baff member had sent me a personal message, discussing
personal matters related to my request but with no policy discussion of
any kind, before the items were deleted.
|
gull
|
|
response 104 of 357:
|
Jan 12 23:59 UTC 2004 |
You admitted in earlier responses that when you saw what valerie had
done, and that she was leaving, you realized you had a limited window in
which to get your items removed. To me it sounds like you knew you were
taking advantage of a questionable loophole.
|
jep
|
|
response 105 of 357:
|
Jan 13 00:14 UTC 2004 |
View hidden response.
|
jep
|
|
response 106 of 357:
|
Jan 13 00:22 UTC 2004 |
My response resp:76 contains all of the e-mails between myself and
staff members, discussing the deletion of my items, including all
headers. I sent the first one from Grex and then the rest from my
account on M-Net. My Grex e-mail is forwarded to M-Net. Most of the e-
mails were included to either baff or staff
I have omitted the personal message I mentioned as it is of no value in
this discussion.
All of my contact with the staff of Grex on the matter is included, in
both directions. I excluded a couple of lines of comments which would
not affect this discussion.
An explanation of Valerie's suggestion that I just mass-delete my own
responses... she sent it to me at 10:00 p.m. Uncharacteristically for
me, I had logged off for the night and gone to bed early. I never got
to respond to her suggestion before she deleted my items.
|
jep
|
|
response 107 of 357:
|
Jan 13 00:24 UTC 2004 |
Whups, the e-mail thread is in my response resp:105, which was posted
from Backtalk as a "hidden" response. It's a bit lengthy., which is
why I posted it as hidden.
|
willcome
|
|
response 108 of 357:
|
Jan 13 00:25 UTC 2004 |
Expurgated.
|
jep
|
|
response 109 of 357:
|
Jan 13 00:56 UTC 2004 |
To read from Picospan:
1) Get to the "Respond or pass?" prompt
2) Type "set noforget"
3) Type "only 105"
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 110 of 357:
|
Jan 13 01:15 UTC 2004 |
Re #102: If you want goodwill from those of us who think this was wrong,
allow staff to restore your items, minus your responses.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 111 of 357:
|
Jan 13 01:22 UTC 2004 |
What Joe said. That or get a legal opinion.
|
slynne
|
|
response 112 of 357:
|
Jan 13 01:47 UTC 2004 |
jep, I think if the items were restored minus your responses and minus
the responses of anyone else willing to have them removed (which I
suspect would be most of the participants), you would find that the
remaining posts would be so far out of context that they would be
almost meaningless. You could also retire the items at that point which
puts the liklihood that someone will accidently stumble on them at
nearly zero.
|
naftee
|
|
response 113 of 357:
|
Jan 13 01:56 UTC 2004 |
jep, seeing as those items were in old agora conferences (as opposed
to Valerie's, which was in the femme cf) I think they'd be a lot
harder to find from the average user than Valerie's baby diary items.
For instance, a user could easily stumble across the femme cf and
browse the items, but wouldn't necessarily go looking under cobwebs to
find obscure items such as the ones you deleted. Ergo, you seem to
have been a little overly paranoid.
|
jep
|
|
response 114 of 357:
|
Jan 13 02:28 UTC 2004 |
re resp:110: Joe, I don't care to buy Grex's affection, not at that
price. If you have to have me act against myself so you can get your
way, in order for you to feel good about me, then you'll have to feel
bad about me. Second, if the items are restored, there'll be a loss
of goodwill from me toward Grex and toward those whom I believe have
voted to put them back on-line.
re resp:111: There is no reason to involve a lawyer. None. And
neither you nor I can afford the bill in any case.
re resp:112: I don't see a mechanism for doing it. I don't see how it
gets done without the items being public, meaning the responses will
never really be deleted. They'll be re-posted by someone. Look
through this item and the other ones and tell me I'm wrong about that.
If my proposal fails, then if it appears likely the items will be put
back on-line, I will press at that time for people to authorize their
responses be removed first.
The items are deleted now. That's a good thing. It doesn't hurt
anyone. *No one had visited those items in a year*. Maybe no one
ever would have. I don't know that, but I know they'd be visited now,
as the only items ever deleted and then brought back; as objects of
curiosity; in order to make attacks against me by people who can't
stand me because I asked for them to be deleted.
Putting them on-line now is not undoing an action. It's taking a new
action which is very hostile toward me. It would be an attack. The
items are causing no harm at all now. The only way they won't cause
further harm is if they're left alone, just as they are. They're
gone. Leave them alone.
re resp:113: Uh huh. Every Grexer will know how to get them.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 115 of 357:
|
Jan 13 03:19 UTC 2004 |
"Every Grexer will know how to get them."
re resp:113 It's a possibility... yes. I think that it would be
rather sad and pathetic if someone did choose to go searching for the
items just to repost them as you said. Time could be spent better
elsewhere, in my opinion. I know there is no guarantee that it can't
happen. I would believe it would be remote, although in the heat of
all this debate it seems more likely in your eyes.
I perceive you are only trying to defend and preserve the sanity and
well-being of yourself and your family. But as best as I can tell,
you went about it in ways that are viewed as unethical by much of this
community. Unfortunately, one of the parties involved also did
something that much of this community considers unethical as well.
Would that your controversies could be separate-- but I don't see that
happening with the way things are going.
I don't know. I've seen a lot of emotions and opinions sloshed
around. What is ultimately decided will redefine Grex in years to
come, I'm sure. I will say it until I'm blue in the face... a lot of
this does say that folks need to very carefully consider what they put
out on the Net... not all places are secure and not all places let you
retract your information so easily. Especially if you consider that
others might have it stashed somewhere. I'm sure people will still be
set in their opinions for quite some time... good luck whatever
happens.
|
gull
|
|
response 116 of 357:
|
Jan 13 03:40 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:115: "I think that it would be rather sad and pathetic if
someone did choose to go searching for the items just to repost them as
you said."
If you've been around here for long, you know there are some sad and
pathetic people here. Or at least ones that like to make trouble and
hurt other people.
"What is ultimately decided will redefine Grex in years to come, I'm
sure."
No, I don't think so. What happens to jep's items is a minor issue to
Grex at this point and will be pretty quickly forgotten. I think
there's an astounding lack of perspective about that.
What's decided as far as Grex's policy towards future deletion requests
is what may or may not redefine Grex.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 117 of 357:
|
Jan 13 04:15 UTC 2004 |
yep, sad and pathetic people. 'twas my point but you know.
"What's decided as far as Grex's policy towards future deletion
requests is what may or may not redefine Grex." That is what I meant--
sorry if that was unclear. I had thought that was apparent.
|
naftee
|
|
response 118 of 357:
|
Jan 13 04:33 UTC 2004 |
Wait, I thought he was primarily worried about his wife finding them...
How versed is his wife in the workings of GreXs conferencing system/UNIX?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 119 of 357:
|
Jan 13 04:35 UTC 2004 |
It was clear to me. Grex has at least three separate things to decide.
Actually four if you want to get into the issue of how to police staff and
users who abuse the system.
Jep says " And neither you nor I can afford the bill in any case"
referring to the cost of an attorney to vet his items with his posts
reviewed. He also says there is no need for a lawyer which leads me to
believe all the breast-beating about liabilities is a red herring. I'm
guessing it's something as simple as jep realizing he wasn't comfortable
letting his son get a grex account under the old status quo. That's the
only explanation that even remotely explains his paranoia if he is to be
beleived this isn't about custody concerns.
In any case, Grex has paid a very dear cost regardles of jep's real
reasons and regardless of whether or not he shares his real reasons for
what he did. Given the cost to Grex, though, I think it is highly
appropriate that jep pay a cost as well. If he dontates something like
$500 to Grex I would accept that as his apology and compensation for the
harm he caused. And of course that would in no way be a precedent to allow
future item deletions.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 120 of 357:
|
Jan 13 04:35 UTC 2004 |
<naftee snuck>
|