A week ago I thought it might be useful to enter an item giving a concise analysis of the two item undeletion proposals now being considered. Unfortunately, the vote happens to have occured while I am up to my gills with work to do, and I haven't been able to find time to finish it until now, when only a few days are left to the vote. I also haven't had time to read the last few weeks of discussion. I imagine it is voluminous and exhausting, and the number of peripheral issues and sideshows has risen even higher than when I last looked. So I think I'll go ahead and post what I drafted a week ago: a relatively brief discription of the situation and my biased opinion of the fundamental issue. BACKGROUND The proposals being voted on relate to the restoration of two sets of items that have been deleted. The two sets of items in question are Valerie Mates' Baby Diary and John Perry's divorce item. Valerie has been entering her responses to her baby diary, which was linked between the parenting and femme confereces, for about six years. Her responses covered daily details of pregnancy and child rearing. In his divorce item, John Perry gave daily reports of events when his wife left him. Both sets of items contained many responses from other Grex users. These items were unusual in that Valerie and John each exposed a lot of their private lives in them, and in that nearly all discussion in them focused on their lives. At the time these items were entered, doing so was something that Valerie and John felt comfortable with, but for various reasons both of them now want their items to be removed. Valerie recently discovered that for the last several years, her baby diary had been continously parodied on M-Net. She does not like her life being put to such uses, and so prefers to remove the diary from Grex. John has come to terms with his divorce, and doesn't want the angry responses from a period of instability in his life on permanent view. He fears that material from those items could someday be used against him or his son. Grex has an established policy that any user may delete their own past posts. So if these items were restored, then they would be restored without the posts by Valerie and John. They would contain only the posts by other users discussing what they said. However it would still be easy to glean much of what Valerie and John said from the other posts -- especially the most "sensational" parts which would have been the most discussed. Neither John nor Valerie feel this would sufficient to remotely satisfy their concerns. THE CORE ISSUE The core issue that members are being asked to vote on here is whether the concerns of these two users are sufficient grounds to justify deletion of the entire items, including responses by other users. Free speech has been an issue of traditional importance to Grex. We don't believe in censoring our users. But censorship comes in many shades of grey. Recently, polytarp entered about 100 copies of Plato's Republic in Grex's agora conference. These were deleted and nobody was upset to see them go. The case we are considering here is not as clear cut, but obviously not all censorship is equally bad. Neither of these items were active discussions. John's divorce item has not been active for a couple years. Valerie's most recent baby item had been frozen for weeks before it was removed, and the others were as much as five years old. If their deletion had not been announced, it could have been a long time before anyone noticed that they were gone. Furthermore, it is not systematic censorship of any idea, opinion, or person that is being proposed here. If anyone who gave John advice in his divorce item wishs to give the same advice again, they are not being prevented. If this is censorship, then it is a form of censorship that does not interfere at all with active discussions. In the end, it comes down to a question of what values Grex holds highest. If the most important goal for Grex is to be an uncompromising bastion against censorship in any form, then you get one answer. If our goal is to be a caring community of people, then you get another. In practice, we are probably something of each, and we have to find a balance on a case-by- case basis. It's a question of how to balance abstract principles against common courtesy. Examine the alternatives: If the items are restored, they will be restored without Valerie and John's posts. They will be at best the sad, tattered remains of their original selves. But in the wake of this vote, many people will stream over to read them anyway, guessing accurately or inaccurately at what exactly John and Valerie said about their personal lives years ago. Little of true value will have been saved and the concerns of John and Valerie would have been utterly ignored, but we will have stood firm against censorship. Valerie will not begin discussing parenting again. John will not begin discussing his divorce again. No discussion will have been restored. From an ideological point of view, this outcome is fine. From a personal point of view, it is mean-spirited and petty to retain these old details of people's lives on public display against their will just to prove a point. If the items are not restored, polytarp, jp2 and others will strut around in coop for the rest of their lives crowing about how Grex stands for censorship. However, they've already been doing that for years, so it won't be much of a change. These cases will not set a low bar for future deletions of items. Jp2, who is the author of the proposal saying that both items should be restored, has also been asking that one of the items he started be deleted. This won't happen unless he too can convince more than half the membership that there is some overriding reason why it should go. Members of our community may, however, have a sense that their personal concerns will be treated with a modicum of respect and sensitivity. Once upon a time, the founders of Grex decided that instead of a "policy" conference like the one M-Net has, Grex should have a "coop" conference. I think that this was intended to convey the idea that the goal of the conference was not to hammer out a rigid book of rules which could be blindly followed to run the system, but to serve as a venue for cooperative decision making. Grex does not, in fact, have any formal policy saying whole items cannot be deleted. Grex has scarcely any formal policies of any description, and does not want any. We have a belief in free speech and we have a belief in community, and we have the freedom to balance those on a case-by-case basis in a way that makes sense. I submit that the restoration of these items would make no sense.157 responses total.
restore the items, milquetoast.
It's not his decision to make, Barely. The members are voting on it. :)
It would be nice of janc could try to keep up with ongoing discussions rather than playing the "up to my gills in work" card followed by a rehash of issues already addressed (and BTW, I've spent the last three days trying to counter jep's personal BS and obfuscation while fighting a nasty flu, so spare us the lame excuses). Anyway, janc misses a few points that must be addressed. He notes that jep's purported reason for his deletion request is "He fears that material from those items could someday be used against him or his son." This is true as far as it goes, which is not very far. I have REPEATEDLY asked jep for specifics regarding this alleged fear. Jep CONTINUOUSLY REFUSES to provide any details whatsover, saying at one point "I haven't discussed in great detail the reasons I think there is risk from those items. I don't want to. More detail about that isn't going to change the discussion." (Item 76, #153). Thus, janc is asking readers to support the drastic implemenation of censorship to satisfy the request of a user who is himself UNWILLING to provide any meaningful justification for imposing such a drastic measure. Instead, janc appears to be falling for jep's clever ploy of implying vague harms to himself or his son, and then failing to support such claims, while instead allowing those already predisposed to do a personal favor for a favored person to create their own worst case scenario that will give them the maximum warm fuzzy to justify their support of censorship. If janc weren't personally connected to this dispute, I expect he would have seen through that intellectual dishonesty almost immediately. Unfortunately, though, janc is blinded, as seen by his later statement: "Neither of these items were active discussions. John's divorce item has not been active for a couple years. Valerie's most recent baby item had been frozen for weeks before it was removed, and the others were as much as five years old. If their deletion had not been announced, it could have been a long time before anyone noticed that they were gone. Furthermore, it is not systematic censorship of any idea, opinion, or person that is being proposed here. If anyone who gave John advice in his divorce item wishs to give the same advice again, they are not being prevented. If this is censorship, then it is a form of censorship that does not interfere at all with active discussions." As I have mentioned in other discussions elsewhere (please try to keep up janc, as it gets really tedious having to go over the same ground over and over like some neverending game of whack-a-mole) Grex does suffer a harm regardless of how long the items in question are idle. My recent example was a new item about divorce posted by someone other than jep. It is quite possible that at some point in the item jep's item will be mentioned. It should therefore be available to assist other users facing similar situations. JEP HIMSELF SAID HE WISHED SUCH AN ITEM EXISTED when he was going through his divorce. It's a shame janc can't keep his facts straight. It is also disingenuous for him to suggest that even if what jep and valerie want is censorship (and it most certainly is) it is some sort of minor or barely harmful censorship, since no one is prevented from providing similar responses in the future. This certainly begs and interesting question or two. Does janc honestly believe that all posters will live forever? Or that someone who posts one year will remain to re-post five years later? I would suggest the answer to both questions is no. Janc's "censorship-lite" still results in the removal of text and viewpoints that (a) could be valuable and (b) are not guaranteed to be re-entered if a similar situation arises. Of course, hidden in janc's "argument" is a hidden and unspoken subtext, which suggests that notwithstanding (a) and (b) there will still be "true grexers" available to repeat their advice if necessary. Which brings us back to the "my ball/my playpen/personal favors for favored persons" mentality that is displayed by some (but thankfully not all) of grex's regular user base. Janc's "sad, tattered remains" argument has also been debunked numerous times (you REALLY need to keep up, dude), and certain posts will remain valuable regardless of how much else is stripped away. In any case, it seems kind of odd to argue that by removing their text, jep and valerie harm the content of their own items so much as to AT THAT POINT justify censorship of the remaining posts. If you don't see a slippery slope there you need your head examined. I realize that I have been spending ridiculous amounts of time trying to get people like janc and jep to be more honest with us in their arguments. I realize now, though, that the problem is they cannot be honest with themselves. How sad.
Jan, if you read resp:3, you have a pretty good idea of what you've missed by not actively following the other 8 or 10 items in which the proposals have been discussed. There has been a great deal of personal attack against me from cyklone and jp2. The statements you see in resp:3 are pretty well polished by this point; they've been repeated a lot of times; several times per day without any note paid to my replies. I think the rest of Grex is pretty tired of it and has stopped reading for the most part. Except the "golden words" argument; that one is new. That there was so much of great and unduplicable value that we don't dare to delete those items; not because of the circumstances, but because future Grexers probably won't be as wise as we were a couple of years ago. We need to teach those future Grexers. Heh.
This response has been erased.
Yeah, #4 was one of the lowest things yet he has said. It is interesting how he managed to twist my statement about the value of old posts into a criticism of new grexers. Especially when JEP HIMSELF commented on the value of the old posts. Jep, I am paying plenty of attention to your replies. I note when you avoid answering questions. I note when you belatedly answer them and then claim you thought you answered them before (but hadn't). I note when you claim I haven't apologized when I have. I note the increase in your claims of personal attacks the more we press you to be honest and answer the questions we are asking. I note the way you twist the words of others to try to make yourself appear more sympathetic. I note the way you sidestep the issue of censorship by claiming the words of others have no value, even after you yourself once said they did. I note the hypocrisy in your statements and I note the utter childishness with which you have conducted yourself in this discussion. I note your approach, at its core, appears to be "please do a personal favor for Jep the Victim."
Grow up, jp2. For goodness' sake, insulting jep or janc or anyone else is no way to get anyone else on your side. It is childish and makes me wonder how much of this you really mean.
This response has been erased.
Isn't it funny that it's been only janc and valerie who have purposely ditributed false and/or antiquated information to the GreX public? I think they're both involved in a conspiracy to destroy GreX.
I would like to know what criminal activity you're speaking about. I didn't notice anything in item 75 that could be construed as criminal. Not answering your questions in the explicit mannner you may wish is annoying, but I only saw "personal attacks" after someone (I think it was you, though I apologize if I'm wrong here) called him a liar and implied that this was what broke up his marriage, etc. And while I may not be a member right this very minute, did it ever occur to you that I could wire some money to aruba and become a member before the vote was over? My vote could very well count if I wished to make it do so. Ticking off potential voters is not good strategy. Ticking off people in general is not the best way to come off as the one in the right. All you have managed to do is annoy people who might have agreed with you if you hadn't been so abrasive. Sometimes the medium does matter as much as the message.
This response has been erased.
So those people who reposted verbatim comments in the "agora" conference on m-net are also criminal? In-ter-esting. And yet Bruce was mocked and told he was being an idiot when he mentioned that he might speak to a lawyer about it. How fascinating this all is. In a sick train-wreck sort of way.
This response has been erased.
You know what? I hate to say it but I am finding the attacks on jep to be kind of mean. Does it really matter exactly why he doesnt want personal sensitive information about himself online? I am thinking about changing my vote for that reason alone. I mean, unlike a lot of people, I dont think it matters much if the items or restored or not since the restored items will be useless after having most of the posts in them taken out. I like the idea of people keeping control of their own words even if those words are about someone else. But this business is getting on my nerves.
This response has been erased.
I don't want jep to worry about losing his kid because of what he posted, even if deleting everyone's responses does tread on a few toes. Jim lost his kids through divorce because the legal system is not fair and does not even follow its own rules. I think it is appropriate to make an exception to free speech in order to protect jep and little jep from the divorce courts. Or even to keep him from worrying about whether postings made by other people about his state of mind during the divorce might be used against him.
I don't remember anything about his "state of mind" that wasn't par for the course with people when relationships end, unfortunately. It was nice to see him rebound from it so quickly. Re jp2 "caring" about Grex, my impression is that much of what he does here is his gleeful way of making Grexers pay attention to him and get all in a tizzy over whatever issue he raises. It is hilarious to watch everyone here fall for it, I must confess. But he is also the sort of person who hates to ignored or disagreed with so much that he can't just leave it at that. So what started as a joke, or a taunt, turns into a BFD. After that, he can't help himself. So yes, I guess you could say he does "care," in a certain sense. Cy is another matter. Either he cares deeply and sincerely about these issues, or else he is doing the best parody of [insert name of your favorite old-time querulous bbser here] I've ever seen.
re resp:14: Lynne, I'd appreciate your "yes" vote on my proposal, very much. It may not matter to you (or anyone else) whether those items are restored, but it matters a whole lot to me.
MD is correct: I care very deeply about allowing the items to remain. I put a great deal of time, effort and thought into my many posts (using a pseudo). Jep even specifically mentioned my pseudo as someone who helped him. Those words were not just for him, though. They were for anyone who could benefit from them. I know a great deal about the subject and I do not want that information to disappear. I very much hope slynne will think about that before she making any decision about changing her vote. In deference to slynne and twila, I will try to tone down the emotional level of the conversation, while noting that jep himself appears to be ramping it up in what is apparently a last ditch effort on his part to prevail. And I do wish some of the other "anti-censors" would focus on the facts and not the emotions. I do give some of them credit for having made that distinction already. As for keesan, I guess I am on her filter so perhaps someone she is not filtering can reprint this for her: In my "Parodist's Reply" Item (50-something I believe) I point out the error of using your personal experience as a yardstick by which to make broader decisions affecting many people. It is even more risky to use Jim's experience as such a yardstick. I am quite certain there were many unique aspects of his case that caused it to come out the way it did. I see very few parallels to jep's situation. I see absolutely nothing that would cause him to lose his children if his items were restored minus his own words. Perhaps aaron will grace us with his quick overview and confirm this as well. Even if he doesn't, keesan would do well to remember that JEP HIMSELF has said that his concerns are NOT legal in nature and are NOT related to his divorce case. I would very much appreciate a "no" vote on jep's request so that (1) others can benefit from the collective wisdom found in his items and (2) because it is the right thing to do in terms of supporting free and uncensored speech.
This response has been erased.
I am not filtering cyklone.
Cool!
I only filter people who are trying to be obnoxious and one who is totally unconcerned about typing/spelling quality. I don't filter people for their opinions.
This response has been erased.
I think it's funny that she filters tsty.
This response has been erased.
> From a personal point of view, it is mean-spirited and petty to retain > these old details of people's lives on public display against their will > just to prove a point. That's crap. There may be some here who are using this very serious issue as an opportunity to be mean, but I reject the notion that wanting the items restored to the position they would be had valerie and jep acted within the bounds of what they were allowed to do (i.e. only scribble their own posts) is "mean-spirited and petty", regardless of how "damaged" the items would be. I'm not claiming that grex will be permanently damaged if the items aren't restored or that an irreversible precent has been / would be set. But to flatly state that it's either "leave 'em deleted" or "admit mean-spiritedness" is nothing more than a partisan campaign speech.
I agree completely with that last sentence. Very well put.
hmm re:0 "They will be but the sad and tattered remains of their original selves....LITTLE OF TRUE VALUE WILL HAVE BEEN SAVED..." So the only true and valuable contributors to any conversation are the ones who started the discussion? I'd seen comments to both valerie and jep about posting such personal details on the internet at the time. If I remember correctly those cautionary comments were scoffed at. This is the internet people, it isn't some small closed tightly knit community. I have no sympathy for someone who laughs at warnings and continues blundering on their merry way, oblivious and deluded. You say you didn't care then, but you care NOW? After feeling the bite or potential bite of the internet? You were cautioned, but did it anyway. Any now you are a crybaby? What lesson have you learned here? Just do what you want(post personal details) in defiance of common sense and other people's concerns because when it gets out of hand you can just go and obliterate everything that was ever posted by AND about you? You don't learn to think. You won't learn that actions have consequences. Just take the easy way out and dont take responsibility for anything you've posted.
People are sometimes under so much stress that they are unable to think straight and they act in such a way that they regret it later.
That's what apologies are for.
well, it is nice to know you were willing to look up the law and explain it to those of us that did not have the time nor inclination. I am not nor was I a public figure. I was never elected to any office. I did hold a position in law enforcement, but what was posted here was not done in my professional employment. Perhaps you need to go and explain this to thos on M-net who you say violated the law.
Try getting someone to apologise to a person they don't like.
re 26 It's odd, isn't it, that people who either a) filter out responses in the coop conference [keesan] or b) choose not to participate actively in it [valerie], still try to write about their opinions and influence other users even though they're missing half the story. Actually, it's pretty childish. Ergo, their responses deserve to be ignored.
Trying to "get" someone to apologize is a losing battle. Either the person who needs to apologize gets it on their own, and has the character to do it regardless of their feelings, or they don't. It's called "character" and "maturity."
But, you know, when you act like an asshole toward someone you tend to not like them *because* of that. Otherwise, you have to admit that you're an asshole, right?
That's one of the hardest lessons of life to learn. Yes, we are *all* assholes at some point in life, and true maturity comes from recognizing it, admitting it to others and apologizing when necessary.
resp:0 "But in the wake of this vote, many people will stream over to read them anyway, guessing accurately or inaccurately at what exactly John and Valerie said about their personal lives years ago." Such is the possibility with restoration... some people are petty and drama-hungry. I think we'd established that earlier. But in that lies the case for care in discretion. Read on. resp:29 Ahhh... back to the heart of the matter. I don't know why we aren't discussing this subject more, actually-- but maybe it shouldn't be beat to death like we have some previous topics.
Re #37: Speak for yourself.
If you really think you've never been an asshole then I would suggest you simply lack sufficient self-awareness. Or maybe you're admitting you've been an asshole but disagree with how to handle it ;)
This response has been erased.
That's an interesting idea. An ensign is a commissioned officer, and so a "public figure", e'en though just graduated from the Academy, but the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy is not. I find myself once again marveling at jp2's ability to blow smoke.
This response has been erased.
Right now, logging on to Grex either costs me money or sleep, as work time and sleep time are the most compressible things I've got. I'm behind on work and I'm averaging five hours of sleep a night. This is an important issue to me, but that doesn't mean I have time to post anywhere near as much as some other people do. I hope people won't weigh people's sincerity by their free time. What is valuable on Grex is active discussions. I know some people do read agoras from years ago, but I can't imagine why, unless it's fierce boredom. The best items are active items, where you can interact with other people. These two sets of items are among the rare items that retain any interest at all when no longer active, but that interest is much less than it was at the time. Further mangle them by deleting key posts, and I think they can fairly be described as nearly worthless. Yes, there might be a few sterling words left that were posted by other people to Valerie's baby diary, but who is going to read through six years of people responding to deleted responses to find them? The damage is done. I don't know what JEP fears. I don't remember his items well. I don't know him well. I think I've met him two, maybe three times. If I ran into him on the street, he'd have to introduce himself, assuming he remembers what I look like. I respect him as much as it is possible to respect someone whose fundamental values are frequently in absolute opposition to mine. Many of his opinions make my jaw drop. Doesn't matter. He's one of ours, and I'm willing to stand up for him. Heck, I've recently argued against blocking polytarp's IP addresses. John is much easier. I wouldn't dare speculate about what he's worried about. However, I find it perfectly plausible that a person might be unhappy about having something like those items lingering around in public. I don't need anyone to map out precise risks in gory detail for me to be able to recognize that this is a more serious and plausible concern than, say, Jamie's desire to have item 37 deleted. The shear amount of abuse John has stood up to here might be taken as a measure of his sincerity. Does he appear to you to be doing this for fun? Cyclone (does he have a name?) thinks I should argue with him point for point for weeks. Probably he thinks Valerie should be doing that. Valerie left coop years ago because she was sick and tired of doing that. She now thinks that was a mistake - she should have left Grex entirely rather than pretending she could disengage from this endless circular debate. Do you really have to sink as much time as John has, and take as much abuse as John has to be counted as sincere? Do you have to restate your position over and over again everytime someone thinks they have refuted it? As it happens, nobody has. My point is that to me, people matter. I have done a lot of work for Grex and M-Net over the years. I did about 1% of it for lofty ideals - really just the ACLU thing, and that wasn't really for Grex. I do it for the people here. For Mark and Mary and Michael and Joe and John and Larry and Ken and Steve and Eric. The names have changed over the years. I did party mostly for Meg and lots of stuff for Mike. There's a huge number of software modifications I could put individual names on, features I implemented because they would be enjoyed by particular people. This is what it all means to me. Probably some response to this is going to say something about cliquishness. When you do so, please define the difference between a clique and a community. I won't do anything inethical for them, but that's rarely a real issue. Caring about people *IS* ethical. To steal a lovely turn of phrase from Anna Quindlan, an ideology that does not have care for our fellow humans at its core is like the discarded skin of a cicada - an appearance of the actual thing with the living being lost from within it. The claim is being made that the principle of "never delete" is so important that John and Valerie's feelings must take second place. To further strengthen this claim attempts are being made to portray them both as evil people, deserving of any harm they might suffer. Or if not that, then to argue that their feelings make no sense - they haven't presented formal proofs of the validity of their feelings, now have they? Or if not that, to blame them - they were stupid to ever post this stuff and if they've gotten smart now, well, it's too late. When have those kinds of arguments ever been missing from this kind of debate? By the way, many of the same people were putting forth the exact same arguments for why Valerie's feelings can be legitimately ignored when I challenged the appropriateness of the parody of Valerie's items on M-Net. The issue has changed but the self defensive dismissal of people's feelings remains. I've been arguing that, in fact, feelings are worthy of respect. That these two sets of items are not so precious as they are being made out to be, or at least not nearly as infinitely precious as real live human beings. The suggestion has been made that my judgement is clouded because I'm biased. The notion is that since I care for some people involved my opinions are tainted, whereas if I only cared about high principles they would be pure. That is precisely the point of view that I am disagreeing with.
Would it be possible for one or several staff members to look over the responses of the few people who want them restored (Mary, Cyklone, JP2) and slightly edit them to omit anything that might reveal the sorts of things jep did not want to remain online, submit the altered versions of these responses to both jep and the authors for approval and then restore only those few responses? This is in case it is voted to restore jep's items. Did I miss anyone who wants their responses in jep's items put back online?
It's a little tough to decide whether or not jep cares more aobut GreX than valerie. I'm inclined to lean towards jep because he does have more guts.
re: 45 (I'm not sure if you've filtered me, but...) I think revising history is potentially more offensive, and certainly more dangerous than ourtight censorship. It's much too subjective, and it's unfair to make the staff (or any person) be the arbiter of what is and isn't acceptable.
This response has been erased.
Janc, you toss around phrases like "My point is that to me, people matter" and later make essentially the same statement about the feelings of others. Great. So what the hell does that mean? Are you saying that my feelings *don't* matter, or that you don't consider me a "person" because I think what Valerie did was appalling? Your phrases are empty of meaning or else you are subtly implying that some people (valerie and jep) are "more equal" than others (ie. me). Guess what? You are right back to doing personal favors for favored persons. If that's your philosophy, fine, but don't expect me, as one of your "unfavored persons" to sit idly by while you seek favors for those you prefer at the expense of *MY* words, which contained a tremendous amount of *MY* thought, time, effort and "feelings." The way to balance and give equal treatment to valerie and jep's feelings, versus mine and others, is to simply permit each of us to exercise autonomy over our own words. What is so hard to understand and accept about that? Each of us gets a little something and each of us loses a little something. That is what life and principled compromise is all about. I'm sorry you seem to have such difficulty accepting that. Keesan: Just so you know, I have already offered to make minor edits to my posts to delete verbatim quotes. I am not willing to commit to any more and I do not believe it is appopriate for staff to make editing decisions over my posts.
Hmm. A few days ago, I think, I heard a news snippet on the news about the lawsuit against Snoop Dogg. A man claimed that his rights were violated because Dogg used, in a track on a CD, a message left on his answering machine. (An earlier decision that the man had no claim was upheld.) I don't know what planet jp2 lives on, to claim that no one may quote, without his permission, material he posted in a public forum. His normal strategy of argument seems to be that saying something often enough makes it true, & that citing sections of the law by number makes them somehow applicable to his claims. (He's been known to do this in Jellyware, citing things he himself wrote as evidence supporting himself, of all things.)
Re resp:0: "Little of true value will have been saved and the concerns of John and Valerie would have been utterly ignored, but we will have stood firm against censorship. Valerie will not begin discussing parenting again. John will not begin discussing his divorce again." And so, perversely, we'll have encouraged SELF-CENSORSHIP. It will create a "chilling effect" on people posting items like that again. It's not clear to me that this is a moral victory. Re resp:14: In fact, it's the incessent personal attacks and cheap shots against jep that caused me to rethink my original decision to vote against his proposal. At first I thought the opposition against him was logical, but lately it's become obvious that a lot of it is simply a mean-spirited personal attack. I don't want to support or encourage that. I'd also like to point out, in general, that use of words like "crap", "asshole", and "pussy" is generally unpersuasive and poor debating technique. If you use them in your arguments, people are going to assume you're talking out of your asshole and that your position is crap. ;>
This response has been erased.
Cyklone says that the he will feel hurt if the postings he made under an pseudonym two years ago to John's divorce items are not restored. John says that he will feel hurt if a discussion of the intimate details of his feelings during his divorce is restored. While I don't utterly dismiss Cyklone's concerns, I think the suggestion that Cyklone, or anybody else, has as much at stake in that item as John does is pretty far-fetched. If I give more weight to John's argument than Cyklone's, is that necessarily an indication that I have an unfair bias toward John? Maybe Cyklone can try to remember his words of wisdom and say them again in another item. John has no such simple option to assuage his concerns if that item is restored.
This response has been erased.
I don't think it's been demonstrated that the absence of an couple old items hurts us all.
To me, the biggest issue with this whole affair is HONESTY. If "grex" - that being its founders, its baff, its braintrust - simply do not wish to have documented policies, want to run grex casually / "loosely", do what seems reasonable on a case-by-case basis, do what is "best for people", that is all fine. JUST COME OUT AND SAY SO EXPLICITLY, so that grexers will know what kind of system they're using. P.S. And please don't say that stating that "grex has no / few policies" is itself a policy statement you don't wish to codify or post. :-)
Re #56: All good points
Re #55 and #51: As I mentioned elsewhere, I apologized for the name-calling
and intend to re-focus my discussion on the issues at hand. I worry you may
not however. To say "I don't think it's been demonstrated that the absence
of an couple old items hurts us all" misses the point I made to janc
yesterday. Do not assume that a given post can be replicated when the next
time it is needed rolls around. Users can die or stop logging on for many
reasons. One of the reasons I keep coming back to grex despite the
incredibly annoying attitudes of certain users is because there is a
COLLECTIVE wisdom that far exceeds the sum of the individuals. When you
begin to make value judgments such the one of yours I just quoted, then I
think you are way out on a limb. You're perception of the value of a given
post may not at all correspond to the value another person gives it. If
you want a "demonstration" if what I am talking about, re-read my posts
about the hypothetical addict item.
Incredibly, janc makes a very similar mistake in #53. If I die tomorrow,
or next week or next year, and someone comes along after my death
searching for help the same way JEP HIMSELF wished the same item existed
for him, then the damage is quite clear. Arguing "replaceability" (1)
misses the point that it is still censorship, and (2) misses the point
that such an assumption of replaceability is false.
Janc makes a similar value judgment when he says "I think the suggestion
that Cyklone, or anybody else, has as much at stake in that item as John
does is pretty far-fetched." How can I respond to that when you've already
made a value judgment about what I perceived the stakes to be at the time
I posted? In fact, if I were to use a religious analogy, I was posting as
if I was fighting with Satan for the soul of a loved one. I have stared
into the face of the jeps of the world when they are almost drowning in
their woe-is-me, how-dare-that-bitch, full-blown victimhood and I was not
about to allow jep to take that long slide down without one hell of a
battle. So to me the stakes were pretty high then. And if someone comes
along with a similar problem, the stakes will still be high for me. So how
dare anyone assuming I was pouring any less into my posts then jep was
into his.
As for the argument about self-censorship, I'm not sure if there's a real
point you are trying to make. I think everyone agrees people should be
careful about what they post on a publicly accessible bbs. So in that
sense, self-censorship is exactly what we do want to encourage. On the
other hand, the flip side of what you say would in effect be saying "let's
discourage self-censorship by allowing additional items like Valerie's and
jep's and then lets give them full control to do a mass-censorship once
they realize there may be negative consequences for their failure to
self-censor." So like I said, I really must be missing the point you are
trying to make.
And I think you are taking a term with very specific meaning ("chilling")
and misusing that term to make your point, whatever it may be. In
particular, government is not allowed to act in ways that discourage
("chill") people from exercising their rights to free speech. I am not
aware that allowing others the free speech rights to respond to an initial
exercise of free speech has ever been construed as "chilling" the original
speaker's freedom of expression.
I hope these thoughts help divert the focus from the emotional back to the
logical. I also hope they remind people that when arguments are fraught
with value judgements like "little value" or "doesn't mean as much to X as
it does to Y" you are slipping into the exact trap that free speech
advocates seek to avoid by opposing censorship. It is a trap best avoided
by making sure that each person has the sole right to control their own
words. With that right comes the sole responsibility for how those words
are used, at least until such time as copyright or other law permits
otherwise.
re resp:29: You said I (and valerie) scoffed at warnings about posting personal details on the Internet. I admit that I ignored any such warnings that were posted in my divorce items, e-mailed to me, or otherwise given to me. However, as I've explained, I just plain didn't care about anything like that at that time. I do care now. You asked what I have learned from all of this? Uh... is *that* the point? Teach me a lesson? I have learned not to... to not care... when I am under great stress? Is that what you mean? I don't understand what you think is Grex's interest in impressing a lesson upon me for what happened 2 years ago. Doesn't your response, taken as a whole, imply a philosophy of "never give anyone any breaks, ever, no matter what"? Is that how you live? I sure hope I never get to that point.
This response has been erased.
My issue with leaving the items deleted is that Valerie didn't have the authority to delete them, so what she did should be undone. I'm fine with leaving Valerie's and John's posts deleted, because they did have the right to remove their own material. Yes, I know both of them have argued that there would be a lot more interest in the items now, and people could infer things from others' posts -- but that's life. People could start posting about the contents of those items in depth now, if they wanted to. They could probably reconstruct some of the more embarrassing stuff, maybe not verbatim, but close enough to make both Valerie and John very uncomfortable. So? It shouldn't have happened, so fix it. Simple.
Of course, that doesn't make any sense. Because let's say Einstein didn't have the authority to publish E=mc^2 (THe MSOT IMPORTANT FORMULA IN THE WORLD) are you going to unpublish it!?
Gull is exactly correct that insisting that Grex must keep publishing things like John's divorce item against his wishes will have a chilling effect on free speech here. cyklone tried to weasel out of that by saying that "chilling" has a specific legal meaning, yadda yadda yadda. I think it's a very good description of the situation. Free speech is not as simple a concept as cyklone would have us believe. I, for one, think that John's divorce items were one of the best uses of Grex *ever*. During the time they were active, I was proud that I had helped keep Grex running so that it could be available to John when he needed it. It should be very clear to everyone by now that John badly wants those items offline. It seems likely that other people in John's position might feel the same way; not everyone, but John is far from an abberation. It follows, then, that if we decide John's items must be put back online to satisfy someone's notion of free speech, those people will be discouraged from ever seeking help on Grex in the way John did. THey will think, "Well, if I ask for help, then I have to give Grex permission to publish the answers forever. I don't know what the answers may be, I don't know how personal they'll be, I don't know how hurtful they'll be. And they will be easily available to the whole world *forever*. I think I'll pass." That kind of self-censorship is the clear result of voting to put jep's items back online. It might mean that no one would ever again use Grex to get help the way John did. You can talk all you want about who has the right to delete whose text, but those are the consequences, and we'll have to live with them. Maybe cyklone really believes that kind of censorship would be good for Grex. I don't. The slogan on our homepage says "A public service promoting free speech". I want people to feel free to say what they want here.
This response has been erased.
And, come one, with the always-available newuser and unauthenticated pseudo account instant creation, if someone wants to discuss such a delicate topic, they can do so via a pseudo. That's not a panacea, maybe, but the histrionics of "we *must* restore the items at all costs" are being matched by the histrionics of "chilling effect" (cue wringing of hands).
jp2, that statement may be true for you, but it definantly isn't true for me. Fear of being embarrassed tomorrow -can- chill speech. I agree wholeheartedly with aruba, that this was one of the most powerful uses of community support that I've seen in a long time. Trust builds a sense of community. To support Valerie and Jep will help build trust in this community, that we are a group that deals well with feelings as well as data. If I cannot trust people, I don't say anything. I have feelings of fear that keep me from contributing even innocuous bits. The mean spirited, gratuitious attacks have been a large part of the reason that I voted with compassion rather than strict logic. I don't want to be a member of a community where logic is the only way we make decisions. Community values are not always well expressed by adhering to a strict , rules-bound list of do's and don'ts. Sometimes community values are best expressed by being compassionate and caring, even if it makes you appear less than perfectly logical. Compassion and caring are not limited to friends. I've never met jep, but I don't want to cause more harm to him in his situation. It may not make sense to you, and you may believe you are the only one who sees the truth, but making exceptions for people will not destroy Grex. Fear of being embarrassed tomorrow by something I said that other people then quoted and commented on is certainly sufficient to cut my participation to a bare minimum. Entries you have made clearly demonstrate that you have no such qualms. But don't assume you can speak for me on this issue. You can't.
I'm wondering where the limits will be drawn. In being sympathetic to John and Valerie's requests to have everyone's responses deleted you are indeed saying Grex is now sensitive to such concerns and we will allow users to censor other users. And if we don't agree to the next request and someone loses a job or a wife because of published comments? Is Grex then liable? I mean, we were sensitive sometimes but not always. So maybe we need to always comply with all such requests? Who will decide? I suggest we leave this in the hands of those entering the text. If you publish it, you can delete it, but there is no controlling what happened while it was readable. And our policy must be clear and consistent: You are under no obligation to publish on Grex, so do so at your own risk, knowing you don't control what others may say in response. If that means we don't see a few personal discussion, such as Jep's item, that's the trade off. I don't think Grex can be all things to all users. I see a potential chilling effect from *allowing* users to censor other users. Like, why bother getting involved in any in-depth or heartfelt discussions - they may be gone tomorrow if someone is uncomfortable with what you said.
I beg to differ, jp2. The _reality_ is that people have *already* removed their text t keep it from being continual available. One person has already noted that he is unlikely to be as trusting of his fellow grexers as he once was. It is likely that some poor sucker is going to come along somwhen and spill his guts, because he didn't see this discussion. I think it extremely UNlikely that any one who has even skimmed the discussion would trust honest feelings to this crew.
Re #62: You say "free speech is not that simple." Actually, it is. In fact it is one of the core principles on which our country was founded and one of the few areas in which you will find a substantial number of so-called liberals and conservatives in agreement. I stand by my distinction regarding gull's improper use of the phrase "chilling." The mere fact that a person may reply to the words of another is not "chilling" under any commonly accepted use of the word in American free speech theory. Indeed, the ability to freely reply to the words of another, without fear of censorship, is the hallmark of "unchilled" speech. In any case, if you want to avoid the effect about which you complain, then form a "crisis" cf and post clear rules that an entire item can be deleted by the author. See how simple that was? I maintain once again that jep and valerie had no reasonable expectation to have that power over their items. I maintain that with no such expectations, when contrasted with the expectations that other users had control over their words, you are doing great violence to grex's professed support of free and uncensored speech. I maintain that their claims of harm are speculative and they have failed to come forward with anything remotely resembling proof. I certainly maintain that if you accept their claims on such a basis, rationally you have no basis to discount the claims anyone else has made as to the harm suffered if *THEIR OWN WORDS ARE DELETED.* I maintain that in pleasing two people you are offending many more. I maintain that you have presented no discernable basis for favoring the two over the many that does not involve your making a value judgment you expect others to share, ie, that the words of *others* have more meaning and impact on valerie and jep than they do for *the others who actually wrote them*! I maintain that if you are serious about what you just posted (and do not intend to implement my crisis cf) then you are calling for an earthshaking change in the operation, structure and principles of grex, for you are advocating that in order for people to feel free to post their deepest thoughts and fears they must also have the power to remove any words anyone else may right about those deepest fears and thoughts. And I maintain that if you deny that is the outcome of what you say in #62 then you are merely trying to find yet another justification for doing a personal favor for a favored person. If you disagree I will look forward to your explaining the distinction you are trying to make. Please try to be as clear as possible. As jp correctly implies, your last sentence is positively Orwellian. "In order to make speech more free, we had to make it less free."
Why bother? Because what you say -now- may be useful to that person. I find it hard to believe that people would comment freely only if they could trust that their words would be immortal. That people wouldn't want to offer advice, comfort and suggestions if those ideas were not enshrined forever on Grex. Are there really users who are so enamored of their own words that they wouldn't contribute otherwise? So what if my advice is gone tomorrow? I'm not writing for generations to come. I'm writing today, for the use of a particular person who is in a particular situation. If I want to ensure that my profound thinking is available in perpetuity, Grex items are a pretty weak way to do it.
(And mary is right, too. :)
RIGHTFULLY SO. This is an open, public, easily copied, and indefinitely archived collection of conversations. It isn't private. It's not appropriate to have personal private discussions here. We should be warning people to be careful not to go there, even if that means the voyeurs in us all miss a good soap opera. If friends are in trouble and need to talk - start a trusted email list for goodness sake. Either that or make Grex a closed, verified system.
Re #69: Did it occur to you (and this question also goes out to those who agree with you) that all this is ultimately going to do is result in more of the very posting/copying that was originally claimed to be the big fear of valerie and jep? I've got news for the "censors": This issue has been debated for thousands of years by minds far greater than ours. The one solution that has stood the test of time in terms of the evolution of the race is free and uncensored speech, with everyone responsible for their own words. You are on the wrong side of history.
My last response was to #67. Lots slipped in.
<s'all right. You snuck in just the right spot to say much of what I was saying>
This response has been erased.
Very well put tod. I certainly *thought* I was part of the community when I was posting to jep's item. But here on the animal farm, some members of the community are more equal than others.
This response has been erased.
In #69 you say "So what if my advice is gone tomorrow? I'm not writing for generations to come. I'm writing today, for the use of a particular person who is in a particular situation. If I want to ensure that my profound thinking is available in perpetuity, Grex items are a pretty weak way to do it. You are making yet another value judgment to justify censorship. Reasonable minds can disagree as who they are writing for and for how long. You may think grex is a weak way to perpetuate "profound thinking" but some of us who were writing about the problems of a grexer and for a grexer (as well as for other users of grex) obviously believe grex is one of the *MOST* appropriate place for our words to reside.
This response has been erased.
I have lots of doubt about that, tod.
This response has been erased.
It's time to shut up, jp2. Really and truly.
It should, of course, be known that Grex has repeatedly refused to allow me to delete even my own posts.
I *know* the motions are not about the words of jep and valerie; they are about the words of others added to the items created by jep and valerie. I've been very clear that I think item authors have the right, and should have the capability, to remove the items they create, in toto, explicitly including words others have written. However, I've also been convinced such was not the situation on grex at the time valerie deleted the items. I've also been convinced to entertain the notion that such should never be the situation on grex. This discussion will inform future decisions people make, about their votes, about the text they enter here, and about where grex goes from here.
Clearly however, this entire discussion should be completely ignored, since it was really started by my item, and it is well known that I am a GreX SYSTEM_ABUSER. Never mind the core issue. It's the PEOPLE that matter.
I think it would also be considerate of jep's ex-wife to delete all mention of her from grex. Both of them acted rather immaturely and they probably don't want the details immortalized.
This response has been erased.
Ignore her, she doesn't read people's responses.
That, by the way, is immature.
I think that this comes down to several different interpretations of what Grex is to its users and the assumptions that they were using the system under. I certainly -- before this discussion -- never realized that people actually read old items, and I never thought of discussions being archived for the ages. To me, agora/various cfs in various incarnations were current discussions, which were fun and informative while on-going, but I'd never go back and re-read it once the current discussion was done. I thought of it as a conversation more than publishing -- fleeting and impermanent. Obviously, this informs how I see the current vote -- I don't feel as if it's such a big deal because (at least in jep's case, and in valerie's old diaries) the items were closed long ago (a few years, right?) and the discussion was over. I think that this is not the way everyone sees it, but some of us do (I'm agreeing with keesan, at least. Amazing!). Also, since to me it's a conversation more than "writing", I don't feel this attachment to my words. I wrote them, yes, but they aren't something I have my ego attached to, in the same way that I do things that I write for publication or that I write with the intent of having people read them (as in essays, etc.) I write my postings in the best way I can, and I try to make them clear and legible, but they aren't agonized over and polished and "written" in the same way that I write for publication. I do realize that other people have other viewpoints, but you must realize that my viewpoint is as valid as yours -- my Grex is also a valid Grex. I think that people are getting into "one true wayism" here, and it's got to stop if we're going to build a Grex that everyone will still be comfortable with. I know that I will never post anything beyond the most trivial and most fluffy details of my life on this system again. I won't share who I am, or what I would like to have help with, or details of my past that might shine light on another's problems, since I don't like being made fun of, as I was in the "agora" parody cf. on M-net. I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. I don't think it was funny and I really resent the fallout from it (Valerie's reaction and Jep's sudden desire to have his divorce items removed among other things). I resent the fact that some people are apparently so lacking in empathy that they can say "it's only pixels. it's only the internet" when people do very clearly do find these pixels to be communication and ways to reach out to other people. I resent some people insisting that obviously everything needs to stay online forever because otherwise there will be no free speech. I feel as if I can't share anything terribly personal anymore, because there's no community here. And that's very sad.
While you may believe you had a valid interpretation of what Grex was, I am still puzzled as to how you could confuse a *bulletin board system*, which implies a public posting of information for public consumption, with some sort of private party line you share for conversations with your friends.
It's really not that hard to do, cyklone. You meet lots of the people whose responses you have read, and just forget that others are reading, too. People are strange.
re 90 > I resent some people insisting that obviously everything needs > to stay online forever because otherwise there will be no free speech. That was never said. Please leave it alone. > because there's no community here. Ask yourself what happened.
LET ME TRY! Once upon a time there were two tribes. The mnet tribe was a bunch of foul-mouthed party animals who enjoyed hot cars, hot women, hip hop, punk rock and other loud pleasures. The grex tribe was formed when some of the more introverted mnetters, who much prefered bicycles, gardening, folk music, classical music and other quieter pastimes, set out to create a life of their own. Because of family connections, and the periodic reunions forced by equipment failure, the tribes had fairly regular interactions. Some of the mnet tribe would make humorous comments about the grexers. Some of the grex tribe would make snide comments about the mnetters. THE END
Re #68: Saying "I want people to feel free to say what they want here" is "positively Orwellian"? Huh? Are you saying that's not what you want? Or are you saying that because I interpret what free speech is differently that you do, then I am trying to exert mind control over people? Free speech is *not* as simple as "Anyone can say whatever they want, wherever they want, however they want, and it will be preserved forever." You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You can't paint a message on the street and expect it to last forever. You can't make threatening phone calls. The reason you can't do these things is that we have agreed, as a society, to balance the good of the whole against the freedom of the individual. If that's Orwellian, well, tell it to Oliver Wendell Holmes. Mary asks: if we make this exception for jep and valerie, then where do we draw the line in the future? I think it is a very good question. And a hard one. But just because it's hard doesn't mean we can't address it. And it certainly doesn't mean we *shouldn't* address it. We shouldn't say, "Oh, it's too hard to balance people's feelings against our principles of allowing free speech. Therefore, we are forced to not value people's feelings at all, because it's too hard." That's a copout. cyklone "maintains" a lot of things in #69 - let's see if I can address some of them. He seems to make have a big problem with value judgements. Apparently, he thinks we should all be able to get through life without them. He is correct that voting against Jamie's proposal and for jep's involves making a value judgement that the harm done by restoring the items is greater than the harm done by leaving them deleted. I am not calling for an "earthshaking change" in Grex's operation. Nor am I saying people should "have the power to remove any words anyone else may right (sic) about those deepest fears and thoughts". I am saying that we, as a community, ought to be willing to make an exception to our general policies when we feel there is a good reason for it. Of course this involves making value judgements. Of course any such system is imperfect. But, in my opinion, it's better than the alternative. In general, smaller organizatons need less rigid rules than large ones. To take an extreme example, all of us individuals have rules for ourselves, but almost everyone violates their rules from time to time, and it's not the end of the world. This is normal and good. If you made yourself a rule about your diet, and then a month later your Mom makes your favorite dessert when you're visiting, it would hurt her feelings and yours not to eat it. So you break your rule, and nothing tragic happens. It doesn't mean you will begin binge eating every night. It was better to break it than not to break it. The same is true for families - they have rules which sometimes get broken, and no one dies as a result. But the bigger an organization gets, the harder it is to be flexible about rules. When you get to the size of a large corporation or a government, most people agree that you have to have rigid rules, otherwise people will choose to exploit them. Why is that, exactly? I think it's because, in a very large organization, people's attachment and committment to the organization is generally weaker than in a small one. People feel insignificant and weak compared to a large organization, and as a result, some of them feel little sense of responsibilityand attachment toward it. Grex is somewhere in between a family and a large organization. But it's a lot closer to a family. And I think on Grex we don't have to make rigid rules and always be bound by them. I think there are a lot of people who see that as the only way to run any kind of organization, and they want Grex to fit into that mold no matter what. Some of them, like Jamie, want that so they can manipulate the system. Other people just can't imagine anything without a lot of rigid rules.
Am I allowed to cough, though?
Re #56 (albough)... So if Grex is to be run loosely, with little explicit rules, somehow Grex has to have an explicit rule saying so?
This response has been erased.
I don't think of myself as a rule-bound person, Mark. But I do see being flexible in this specific area as a place Grex doesn't want to go. y
Wow, stay away from Coop for a day or two and look how the text piles up. In just this one item, even. Having read it all, I'm convinced that restoring the items is the correct thing to do, so I'm not going to change my original votes (yes on A, no on B). I don't have much to add to the discussion, as all the points I would have made have already been made by others, pretty much. So I'll just say that I'm substantially in agreement with mary, cyklone, igorvh, jmsaul. Maybe others whom I'm forgetting at the moment. One thing that folks who feel passionately about the issue, on either side, should keep in mind is that this thing is being voted on. With an issue like this, there are diehards in both camps whose minds aren't going to be changed no matter what. But the diehards aren't the ones who are going to be deciding this, so it's the swing votes that you have to win over to your side. And people tend to be put off by tactics such as bullying, hectoring, threats, and name-calling. Too much of that, and you risk changing the referendum into a referendum about you. I can think of one person in particular who -- assuming that he sincerely cares about the issue and isn't using it so satisfy some obsessive need to be center-stage -- should adjust his style.
Well put, Mary. Aruba, let me see if I can go through your red herrings one by one. First, as I think I made quite clear, what is Orwellian is your view that in order to encourage free speech (such as jep's and valerie's), you would limit free speech for people such as tod and myself. Dance around it all you want, but that is all you are doing. Dancing around the issue is not the same as addressing it. Next, your mention of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not analogous to the current situation. The "fire" and "fighting words" exceptions were carved out by the USSC to address situations where specific words or types of words would lead to *immediate* harmful *actions*. If you do not believe me, please do your own research and educate yourself. The posts people made to valerie's and jep's items in no way implicate the concerns noted by the USSC. It certainly does not mean that limits can be imposed on free speech simply because someone identifies some competing concern they believe weighs against free speech. Again, you are misstating the true state of free speech in our society and in so doing you are doing a disservice to those who wish to make an informed decision on the restoration issues. Mary is not copping out at all, and for you to say so is to resort to the same sort of name-calling for which I have been criticized. Copping out is failing to fairly recognize both sides and accepting that sometimes in order to do what is right we must personally sacrifice something valuable to us. In this case, what must be sacrificed, at least in this case, is the idea that if you like someone enough you can waive a core value such as free speech. There are possible compromises, such as the "crisis" cf I proposed. The problem is that it doesn't allow jep or valerie to impose their will on innocent posters on the issues at hand. That is the sacrifice to be made. And by the way, it was very insulting of you to suggest that Mary was saying "Therefore, we are forced to not value people's feelings at all, because it's too hard." She said no such thing and you owed her an apology. There are many ways for grex to show it values feelings short of outright censorship. Asking people to voluntarily remove their posts, or edit them, is one very good way that has already been done. Cautioning those who would reveal personal details in public places would be another. Apparently you feel this is not enough, and that censorship must still be imposed in order for grex or you to show proper deference to the feelings of your favored persons. You also carefully avoid tod's very well-written post about the seamy underbelly of your viewpoint. By professing to show value for valerie and jep's feelings by supporting censorship, you minimize the feelings of those being censored. If you truly valued feelings and a sense of community, I suggest you exand your focus beyond just your favored persons list. Which leads to the issue of value judgments. If you are suggesting I believe in a value-free grex or in living a value-free life, of course you are incorrect. As I mentioned, a crisis cf is one way to preserve both the values of community and free speech. More importantly, though, is that free speech prinicples, as developed in America and elsewhere, have often focused like lasers on the issue of "content-based" censorship. In other words, one of the greatest evils to be avoided is censoring others based on overt or implied judgments made about the value of the words being censored. I'm sorry you were unaware of this. When you say "He is correct that voting against Jamie's proposal and for jep's involves making a value judgement that the harm done by restoring the items is greater than the harm done by leaving them deleted" you seem to see the trees but not the forest. The mere fact you are *making* this value judgment is what history has taught us to be very wary of. History is the ultimate arbiter and it should not be left to a small group of voters. The core premise is that once words are placed into the marketplace of ideas, those words must rise or fall on their own, without manipulation or interference. The fact we allow people to remove their own words in no way means such powers can or should be extended to the words of those who comment on the words removed. Putting aside the fact your willingness to make and act on such a value judgment is antithetical to free speech, you also avoid addressing or even acknowledging important issues specific to this situation. As tod and I have mentioned, we poured our hearts and souls into our responses in jep's items. Those words have intrinsic value regardless of whether or not you agree or wish to admit it. On the other hand, neither jep or valerie has shown any specific or intrinsic harm will occur if tod's words and my words are allowed to remain. So your calculus is apparently "I am making a value judgement that the harm done by restoring the items, which harm has not been specified much beyond a general sense of outrage and hurt feelings, is greater than the harm done by leaving them deleted, even though said harms from deletion have been clearly and rationally specified." So even if one accepts your proposal to engage in content based censorship (which I still oppose, notwithstanding my willingness to debate this point with you), under *your own system of censorship* you have failed to make anything resembling a compelling case. When you speak of making exceptions, it would be helpful if you would spell out some criteria to consider. Indeed, I made this very observation and request some two weeks ago and I have yet to see any serious discussion. So far, you appear to suggest that if someone claims sufficient outrage or hurt feelings, that would be sufficient grounds for an exception that would permit censorship. I have argued you should hew much more closely to the USSC standard of immediate threat of harm. That is why I offered to contribute to a legal opinion for jep. If I thought for a moment that *my* words, if allowed to remain, would cause jep legal problems, then I believe the burden to justify an exception had been met. So far, though, neither valerie or jep have come forward with anything remotely close to an immediate threat of harm. Nor do I see them being able to at any time in the future. Therefore, even if one accepts you view there should be exceptions, valerie and jep do not qualify. You say "I am not calling for an "earthshaking change" in Grex's operation. Nor am I saying people should "have the power to remove any words anyone else may right (sic) about those deepest fears and thoughts". But isn't that exactly what you are suggesting? If not, please explain the distinction you are making between jep and valerie's items and the next person who comes along and says "I didn't care I was spilling my guts then, but I do now, and so many people posted that even if I remove my words, traces of my "guts" will remain in the words of others. So please censor those words as well." That is the result of your logic, isn't it? If not, please explain. To make comparisons between a core value of America, and presumably grex as well, with adherence to a diet is simply silly. Analogies are only good when there is some reasonable connection between the two. Your analogy fails miserably in that department. I think your comparison between and organization and a family is very telling. Families do attempt censorship all the time. Keep in mind, though, that families can be just as unhealthy as organizations. Please also keep in mind that many (most?) families, almost by definition, do not involve relationships between equals. That being the case, you are really on a slippery slope if you think grex should adopt a family model. Of course, I would submit it already has created a "family" in which some members are more equal than others and personal favors are done for favored persons. Oh well, Tod and I always knew Mom liked you best!
YOU'RE FORGETTING ME!! re 95 > a message on the street and expect it to last forever. Please re-read response #93. You know, it would save a lot of time if you guys actually READ what people wrote. But then again, the attitude seems to be to DELETE things now, isn't it?
SZLIP
Re #100: If you are talking about me, I trust you will note I have declined to accept the bait that has been offered recently ;)
Mark owes me no apologies. I was not at all offended by his comments. I understand there is room for reasonable people to disagree about how this should go.
Alrighty, then. I retract my statement about the apology owed.
Name callers! You're all name callers, and you know it, but you still don't do anything about it... but call more names! Name callers!
Cyklone, this is not a court of law. Grex policy is not law. We get to decide what that policy is, and we get to decide what we want Grex to be. I'm tired of this "heart and soul" argument. I put a lot of thought and energy into my posts in jep's items too, you know. I did it because I wanted to be of help, not out of any sense of self-aggrandizement. So if John no longer wants those posts online, well, I'm a little sad, but his stake in the matter is clearly greater than mine. So I bow out. No one has the reasonable right to expect Grex to keep publishing their text forever. "Infinite publishing" is not a part of free speech, by any definition. So no, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the damage done to posters to the items that were removed. If their text was so important, they could easily have kept a copy somewhere. And if their goal was really to help jep or valerie, then the wishes of those people should be important to them. So, here we are, voting to decide which course of action is the lesser of two evils. Like Mary, I think there is room for reasonable people to disagree.
I'm astonished by the sheer simplicity of Joe Saul's position. The items were improperly removed, so they must be put back. End of story. When John's item was deleted by Valerie, I had just started a discussion with board in which I suggested temporarily deleting John Perry's item so we could put the question of whether to permanently delete it to public discussion. A couple board members had said they thought that was a reasonable idea, and a couple had strongly objected and many had expressed no opinion. I hadn't yet had a chance to ask John Perry if he'd be OK with going that route - he might have not wanted to have the public discussion we've seen he if he had been given a choice. If he had approved, I'm pretty sure a majority of the board could have been found to support a temporary deletion. If Valerie had not preempted the whole thing, we might still be having this same discussion. I'm wondering what Joe's position would have been then? I suppose he could have said that the board acted illegally in deleting John's item, so it needs to be put back. But I doubt if he'd care to take that position. I imagine in that case he'd be prepared to consider John's case on whatever merits it may have. So how does that make sense? Because of some action Valerie took, John's request cannot be given any consideration? Isn't that something of an injustice?
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Cyklone and jp2, I was sharing my impressions of what people have said and implied in these debates. Richard, at the very least, is upset that everything written on Grex is not going to be preserved. I don't know if anyone else shares his views, but it certainly seemed to be the thrust of several other comments. As for thinking that Grex was a private and somehow cliquish thing, no, I never thought that, exactly. I knew it was open, and that people could read it. But I also didn't think of it like USENET -- it's small and not very many people have even heard of it (I think, of every computer savvy person I've ever mentioned it to in verbal communication, maybe one has even heard of it... and that's in Ann Arbor, where it's based.) Of the subset of people who do use it, what percentage reads the conferences? According to the staff I've spoken to, not even half. Maybe not even a quarter. That's still quite a lot of people, true, but I also thought, perhaps mistakenly, that there was a culture of civility and etiquette around here. That most of the users who did read and respond in agora understood that people should be treated with respect and that people's feelings mattered. I left M-net after being fed up with all of the "fucks" and "shitdicks" and gratuitous insults flung around. I didn't wish to have a conversation where that kind of thing was common. So I walked away and found a place where it felt as if there was an understod respect for the other person. Whether or not I liked or agreed with various users, at least we could discuss our differences with respect to each other as people. This has changed in the last several years, and not for the better. I have always thought that one could argue without descending to personal insults.
To continue, yes, I do think that feelings are more important in some cases than principle. I'm sorry if that seems wrong to you, but it makes one able to bend.
Re #109: I don't think people who abuse their staff privileges should be
allowed to benefit from doing it. I feel that way especially
where censoring other people's words is concerned.
Keep in mind that I completely agree that both Valerie and John
have the right to remove their own words. I just don't agree that
Valerie has the right to remove other people's just because she
doesn't want people to read what they said about her, or because
John doesn't want people to read what others said about him.
I'd think both items should come back minus John and Valerie's
responses, no matter what the procedure was. Personally, I'd be
willing to scribble my responses in John's item if he asked --
but he should ASK, because they're my responses. I'm still
willing to.
re 108 > We get to decide what that policy is, and we get to decide what we want Grex to be. HMM, this doesn't appear to be what happened when valerie delted the items ON HER OWN. Once again, you're lying through your teeth.
Religious people tend to be more adamant than average about everyone having to follow the rules (no matter how illogical the rules may be). But the Catholic Church has come up with a way to deal with people who break the rules - you confess, apologize, promise never to do it again, and maybe contribute something to the church in exchange. What sort of apology could valerie and jep make here that would satisfy people? I recall someone a while back actually asking for financial reparation to grex from jep. Could he maybe volunteer to take over some of the more tedious staff duties, such as answering requests for help?
She could satisfy jep by marrying him.
Grex is a private system and the people who run it may be expected to do favors for their friends from time to time. If you want copies of some responses of yours in the items valerie and jep started, it's reasonable to ask for copies of them. But it is not reasonable to expect your responses to remain on public display until you want them removed. You can remove them any time you like, but it's unreasonable to ask the administrators to automatically preserve them in public view. If valerie or jep had asked me beforehand for my consent to delete their items, I'd've said: Yeah, sure. So they didn't ask me, they just did it. So valerie hates to be parodied. So what?? Jamie's "This is a deliberate censorship designed to frighten those who are not in Grex's upper class into silence" is drama queen idiocy. Talk about estrogen poisoning. In the first place, nobody is "frightened," nor was that ever the intent. In the second place, Grex has nothing resembling an "upper class," or if it does, the definition depends on whomever you're talking to. (Ask me, and I'll say it's obviously me.) Anyway, I vote not to restore the items publicly in any form.
I am frightened.
Re #108: You say "I'm tired of this "heart and soul" argument. I put a lot of thought and energy into my posts in jep's items too, you know. I did it because I wanted to be of help, not out of any sense of self-aggrandizement. So if John no longer wants those posts online, well, I'm a little sad, but his stake in the matter is clearly greater than mine. So I bow out. No one has the reasonable right to expect Grex to keep publishing their text forever. "Infinite publishing" is not a part of free speech, by any definition. So no, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the damage done to posters to the items that were removed. If their text was so important, they could easily have kept a copy somewhere. And if their goal was really to help jep or valerie, then the wishes of those people should be important to them." I'm not sure if your are missing the point I am trying to make or deliberately avoiding it. Do you even remember the points I tried to make in earlier posts? When I keep saying most posts have intrinsic value, I do *not* mean only to the author. You keep ignoring my point about the possible value to a third party. If the next person in jep's position is also helped, and that person is even a step closer to crossing the line jep almost crossed, then allowing those words to remain *far* outweigh any speculative benefit to jep from deletion. The "heart and soul" put into those words was to provide a benefit you would deny via censorship in order to do a personal favor for a favored person. What is even more amazing is that JEP HIMSELF wished such an item existed. So you (and jep) seem to be ignoring the fact that jep has essentially made one of the most compelling arguments *against* censorship. The goal here, which you consistently mistate, is permit words to have their maximum effect and value for *everyone* by not censoring them.
I wonder if jep would have gone back through old agoras hunting for such items.
Well, as I said earlier in this discussion, all it would take would be one post in agora or a conversation in party for someone to say "oh, btw, you might want to check out item X. You might find it interesting." Certainly of such an item had been in existence when jep began his one of us would have mentioned it to him.
This response has been erased.
Childish behaviour from children is of course to be expected.
123: Not the same thing. Not even close. You're still a drama queen, albeit small-time by mnet & grex standards.
Re resp:64, resp:71: Sure. And we could be like M-Net, where everyone uses pseudos for fear of becoming personally involved, and discussion consists mainly of exchanges of insults. If people can no longer feel comfortable talking about their own lives here, that's what we'll be left with. Shitdicks and half-assed parody. Re resp:90: "I resent the fact that some people are apparently so lacking in empathy that they can say "it's only pixels. it's only the internet" when people do very clearly do find these pixels to be communication and ways to reach out to other people." I think it's an attitude born of hanging out places like M-net, where there's a sense that everyone's just playing a shallow pseudo and no one is revealing who they really are. You can beat up on them all you want because they're not real people and don't feel pain. Re resp:110: In other words, Valerie is no longer here, so we have to punish jep in her place? Re resp:120: I'd like you to explain why you feel free speech means publishing your words forever. If a library recycles old copies of the New York Times, are they therefore censoring everyone who wrote a letter to the editor?
Where do you get that impression from #120? I've discussed the issue before and never equated non-permanence with censorship. (Try quoting those parts you are commenting on) I made a distinction between non-permanence caused by accidents such as system failures v. non-permanence caused by an intentional act in violation of express policy, however. The latter case is censorship, the first is not. I'm sorry you apparently did not note and/or understand that distinction.
This response has been erased.
There you go with the drama again. Nobody is afraid of anything going on here, much less "the facts," much less "you all."
This response has been erased.
Re 100, where remmers comments on those he is in agreement with: I'm in disagreement, often violent disagreement, with those he listed. Nonetheless, I've been convinced by jmsaul's argument.
Violent disagreement to cover-up jep's violent crime.
This response has been erased.
While we are at it, let's wipe all of m-net too.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Is naftee using keesan's cancer to harass her>? That really is fucked up.
What's fucked up is that she revealed that her inner emotions are destroying her!
We're within minutes of the polls being closed on the great item killing caper of 2004 - yea! :-) I don't want any apologies from valerie or jep - I understand why they wanted what was done. I *would* like some HONESTY from them, though: Just set aside any & all justifications for what was done, and admit that for their own reasons they carried out a unilateral act on grex that caused all this contention, and on a widespread basis. Sorry aruba - I repect everything you have done for grex and won't denegrate it - but there is no "we" here - there is only empowered baff working largely without restrictions and almost always in a reasonable fashion - almost. The items being restored or not will have no effect on that state of affairs, for better or worse.
Polls are closed. A few corrections. Valerie did not admit that she knowing did wrong when she deleted John's items. When she deleted her own, she thought some people would be dissappointed to see them go, but never expected there to be any serious outcry. She thought it was obviously within her rights and expected others to think so too. By the time Valerie deleted John's item she had found out that many people did seriously object and that most perceived it to be in violation of a rule she hadn't heard of. But she did it anyway because she believed (and still believes) that it was right. She left staff not out of contrition or shame, but because it was obvious that her values were no longer in sync with Grex's. It is also not true that nobody fears the outcome of this vote. I know two who fear it on a rather personal basis, and several who fear it on a less personal basis. Restoration might have a chilling effect on a few people, and I can think of at least one person who might be tempted to stop posting on Grex in protest if they are not restored. This is not an easy issue.
Sissies.
Jerkfaces.
This response has been erased.
Can't execute "cat > /tmp/tr"! Nasty return from editor: 127 Ok to enter this response? n Response aborted! Returning to current item.
Jerk.
(Rejoining this discussion after a couple of days' absence...) Re #131: Well, I am often in strong disagreement with the people I said that I agree with (on this issue) too. :) Re #140: "By the time Valerie deleted John's [jep's] item she had found out that many people did seriously object and that most perceived it to be in violation of a rule she hadn't heard of." Hmm... Well, for what it's worth, when she said "It's longstanding Grex policy that the person who created an item can delete it," (exact quote, see resp:68,11) to justify deleting the diary items, *I* was the one surprised by a rule I never heard of. There was no such written policy, nor any pattern of past practice to support it. It just seemed to come out of the air, and to contradict to what I thought Grex had stood for over the past twelve+ years.
I too was surprised by that. I don't think that was ever a Grex policy.
This response has been erased.
It's called a rationalization.
This response has been erased.
It's
This response has been erased.
Monty Python's Flying Circus! (Well, someone had to say it.)
Re#146, #147: It certainly was not a policy articulated or supported in practice by anything I've read so far as I've recently worked my way through archived conferences. And while I've been away from Ann Arbor for a while and people do change over time, that is also not a policy that would have been supported by many of the grexer's I knew personally from back then.
This response has been erased.
Same here.
TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE
You have several choices: