From all the discussion to date, I think we're approaching a consensus that
items should be removed from conferences only in very obvious circumstances,
such as those involving illegal behaviour. I'd like to see that consensus
consolidated and clarified. Therefore, I am making yet another proposal
on the subject.
I am looking for a single vote, yes or no, that will settle the question
until someone brings it up again.
Resolved: An item's author, the person who entered the
item in a conference, shall have the authority
to remove that item from the original conference
and any conferences to which it has been linked.
If the software installed on grex does not give
the author sufficient capability, the author may
seek assistance from staff and fairwitnesses.
If the above resolution fails, the following paragraph will be adopted
as a member resolution:
An item's author may remove an item at any time before a
response has been made to it. After a response has been
made, an item may be removed only if it poses a clear and
present danger to the system or it clearly abets criminal
activity. Examples of the former include a very large item
that fills all available disk space, an item that is posted
more than once or in several conferences at once and items
that contain terminal escape sequences. Examples of the
latter include items that contain social security numbers
or credit card numbers.
235 responses total.
I would prefer one vote, yes to adopt the first paragraph and no to adopt the second. However, I am open to presenting each paragraph as a separate proposal, if we cannot settle on acceptable working of each paragraph.
I don't like eother of those options, Joe. So I wouldn't know which way to vote on your proposal.
Is there something you would prefer?
Because those aren't opposites, it's silly to pretend they are.
I commend Gelinas for working to clarify what should have been clear years ago. Good luck.
I would rather see the second paragraph offered, alone, as a resolution.
I too thank Joe for taking the lead on this. We need a clearer policy, for sure. But I think I'm going to have to see the vote results first. Not only how the majority went but the vote spread. I'm finding it harder and harder to read where this community stands on an issue. It's not like the old days. ;-)
This response has been erased.
Yes, we need to see how the vote went to get a clearer view of our path. However, if this proposal has to be presented as two separate votes, I want to present them at the same time. So I'd like to get at least some response this evening. :)
I agree with resp:8. If you bring the second proposal to a vote, I'll vote for it. I think trying to make it an either/or or trying to run two proposals in parallel needlessly complicates things. If you do put your second proposal up for a vote, I'm going to withdraw my proposal. Yours accomplishes the same thing.
OK. I'll propose just the second then.
So the current text of the proposal is:
An item's author, the person who originally enters an item,
may remove that item at any time before a response has been
made to it. After a response has been made, an item may be
removed only if it poses a clear and present danger to the
system or it clearly abets criminal activity. Examples of
the former include a very large item that fills all available
disk space, an item that is posted more than once or in
several conferences at once and items that contain terminal
escape sequences. Examples of the latter include items
that contain social security numbers or credit card numbers.
I note that staff has edited responses that contain control sequences in
the past. I do not think this proposal affects that practice, but I also
think adding 'responses' to it is unnecessary clutter, and thus confuses
the issue.
Can we enter a proposal to make medical marihuana legal on Grex?
If you can find a member to enter such a non-sensical prooposal, sure.
Cool!
UYEAH!
This response has been erased.
A proposed modification:
The Grex user who originally enters an item in the Grex
conferences may remove that item at any time before a
response has been made to it from any other user account.
After any other user account enters a response, any or all
text of an item may be removed by a fairwitness or staff only
if two or more members of the board or staff determine either
that the text to be removed represents an abuse of Grex
system resources or that failure to remove such text might
abet criminal activity or reasonably expose Grex to legal
liability of either civil or criminal nature.
Seems more specific.
I feel slightly uncomfortable with this because, as fairwitness, I can see wanting to remove something quickly, before I can get concurrence from someone else. For example suppose someone enters an item, then responds to it with a second login ID. I have no way of knowing that this is really just one person, but might still feel urgency to get information off Grex, such as a social security number or credit card number. Under this amendment, I'd have to wait for someone else before I could do anything about it, even if the owner of the number asked me to remove it. Is there some way to word this so that I could act, but the item could be "saved" pending review by a board or staff member?
This response has been erased.
It was beautiful and fuzzy.
This response has been erased.
Since staff have at least as much power in individual conferences as the fair witness, it really isn't worthwhile to try to prevent them, individually and specifically, from using that power. It is much better to establish the guidelines and expect _everyone_ to adhere to them. Yes, it would be _possible_ to word the proposal to require preserving the removed item pending final approval, but I consider that an implementation issue better left until after the basic policy is decided. I don't like other's suggestion partly because of semantics: anyone can use the 'scribble' command on text they have entered at any time. That the text in question is the text of an item is not relevant. Similarly with jp2's suggestion, it is both an implementation detail and also a matter of semantics. This proposal concerns itself primarily with entire items, which contain the text of several authors. It really doesn't address single responses, which would, in my view, continue to be handled as they always were. Let us consider a couple of concrete examples. 1) Someone creates an item that says, "List any credit card numbers you have found here. Here's my contribution 1234xxxxyyyyzzzz". The first response is a comment that the activity is illegal and a request that the item be removed. At that point, the item author can scribble the text but not remove the item. The second response is a list of credit card numbers. The third response is a request for removal. Under my proposal, the entire item can be removed, by the fair witness or staff. 2) Someone makes a response to the "happy" item that contains a credit card number. The treatment of this response is not controlled by my proposal, so it would be handled as it always has been: the single response will be edited or removed. 3) Someone enters several items with the exact same text. Someone else follows right behind, making the first response a request to remove the item. At that point, the item author can scribble the text but not remove the item. Under my proposal, the repeated items can be removed, by the fair witness or staff. Note that my proposal really does not distinguish who makes the first reponse. Even if the item author makes the first response, my proposal would control.
This response has been erased.
I am not comparing the recent events to credit card fraud. I am showing how _this_ proposal would work, in future. Under this proposal, the items recently removed would still be in place.
How would the huge text items from the Gutenberg project fit under this Joe?
See example three above, C. S.
It seems pretty clear that a majority of the members felt Jep and Valerie were in the right to have items they entered removed. So why would we want to immediately go to to another vote that would restrict other users from the same courtesy? Maybe anderyn would like the item in which she discussed her daughter's unintended pregnancy removed. Last I looked anderyn had removed all of her responses from that winter 2001 conference, but the item remains. I suspect that must be of some bother to her. Shouldn't she be able to remove that item? Jep has items he entered talking about his son having Asperger's syndrome and child support issues. If he wants those gone what happens? How about mynxcat's weight loss item? Do we get to say who has a worthy concern or is it up to the author of the item? I don't get how the membership could so strongly support Jep and Valerie and then so "no way" to the next injured poster. Is that what's happening? Joe, I think your first proposal is more fitting at this point. I suspect it will find support. It will change Grex, but we always knew it was shaped by the membership, for better or worse.
This response has been erased.
M-Net's great.
Re: #29, no, I don't believe that "a majority of the members felt Jep and Valerie were in the right to have items they entered removed". I believe grexers just said that "well, they're already deleted, it's too late now, let's just accept it and move on". I don't think that grexers have agreed that wanton item deletion is acceptable, even if one tries to claim "a precedent has been set". Let's just hope that there aren't more rogue staffers / FW's out there who, having read all these discussions (let's hope), would still go ahead and kill items for no other reason that what valerie used.
And + don't forget that a large majority of the members who voted didn't read these items, and instead relied on what Valerie Mates lied.
Let's relie on m-net, and screw GreX.
You've obviously been trying but you appear to be having a little difficulty getting it up...
This response has been erased.
I don't mean that at all. I mean they were inspired by spam: Grex is allowing itself to be run by spam.
re 36 Can we really know that for sure?
This response has been erased.
I don't understand responses 36-39, but I wonder if I am expected to. I'm surprised by how the vote went. I really expected the items to be restored. Nonetheless, I can still see the membership deciding that the deletions should NOT be repeated. Indeed, that is the impression I've gotten from the discusssions (which is why I am surprised by the outcome). Mary, we _don't_ have to be consistent, y'know; we are people. :) At this point, I'd rather reserve the "authors may delete their items" option for consideration if the present proposal fails, even though I am more in favour of the first proposal.
I don't see why 36-39 would confuse you.
Wait; remember that the staff is easily confused about issues.
I'm not completely satisfied with the text so far, since it leaves room
for people to harrass fair-witnesses who remove items. So I'll be trying
to improve the text. Comments are appreciated.
An item's author, the person who originally enters an item,
may remove that item at any time before someone else has
responded to it. After another person has responded, an
item may be removed only if it poses a clear and present
danger to the system or it clearly abets criminal activity.
Examples of the former include a very large item that
attempts to fill all available disk space, an item that is
posted more than once or in several conferences at once and
items that contain terminal escape sequences. Examples of
the latter include items that contain social security numbers
or credit card numbers. These examples are not exhaustive;
fair-witnesses and staff have discretion to act in the best
interests of grex and its users.
That would undeniably allow Greek Week; I vote yes.
No, it would not. It falls under "not exhaustive" and "discretion to act in the best interest of grex." But I'm willing to entertain suggestions on how to more explicitly exclude such vandalism.
Oh, ah ha! Now we get to the REAL issue being voted upon here: this isn't an item to LIMIT staff power: O, no, it's to increase it so that, at their whim, guided by "judgement", they can delete any item they choose --- at their whim! Do you deny this is fact?
Am I supposed to sigh or shake my head here?
I don't think it's deniable, kip, that the above proposal, which would, in fact, have made Valerie's vandalism perfectly legitimate under the rules, is disguised as something that will limit and clarify staff's power.
At what, Kip?
Not that I think jp2 or any of the other M-Net twits care, but for the record I voted before I got Valerie's e-mail.
Was just ruminating: in all the text that's been written on this, did anyone mention the precedent of the destruction of the Sex conference by a fairwitness on her way out of the system? This happened in the aftermath of the "unregistered reading via web" vote.
I do indeed remember that ('twas the same time I resgined
from baff, for the same reason), and I think she had less
reason to do what she did that Valerie had.
Too bad I wasn't around.
I'm disinclined to start generating written policies for everything Grex does.
Re resp:29: I think people might vote differently when the question is presented without specific users being involved. I suspect a lot of people voted the way they did out of sympathy for valerie and jep.
It will be a different question if we're voting on a general policy.
This response has been erased.
Look everyone, a policy will not keep a rogue FW from mass item murder, since the policy does not control / constrain the power a FW has. All you can do with a policy is set expectations of acceptable behavior and use it to justify the removal of a rogue FW / staff who deliberately violates it.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Actually, with the new policy, there _would_ be a mechanism to undo a deletion. All that is needed is a statement that deletions are not allowed, which is what this proposal accomplishes.
No, there is nothing in the proposal to limit (by policy only) item killing that mandates that staff will immediate restore items killed in violation. You will be right back to where we were with valerie's and jep's items. Thankfully, I don't see that as being a common occurrence, in fact I expect it to be a rare occurrence. Therefore I'm not overly concerned about a policy being adopted or not. By all means, try to get a policy passed that makes sense, is fair, and clearly lays out the norms. Just don't expect it to deter rogue FW / staff who are willing to "go out in a blaze of glory".
Re 57 - Not particularly, but thanks for asking, bully.
I think resp:64 is right in that a policy isn't needed to protect against valerie's original deletion. No policy is going to save you from rogue staff. What we do need is a policy that can address the situation jep's request got us in. His item's deletion created a situation where it appears users have a right to request that their items be removed by staff. We need a policy if we want to settle whether or not that's the case.
From what little I've read, I'm not sure that anyone else with staff / cfadm capabilities would have unilaterally acted on jep's request the way that valerie did. Thus I don't have a great fear if no policy allowing item deletion by request is passed - without a policy, it's not likely to happen.
But it leaves us in a situation where we have no way of explaining why jep's items were deleted, but items that (for example) jp2 asks to be deleted are not. "We have a policy now" is a pretty good explanation.
This response has been erased.
I have asked too and all people do is make fun of me :(
No, we don't have a "policy." We _do_ have a "sense of the community" that items should not be deleted Just Because the item author asks for it. In fact, even valerie admitted as much, when she didn't delete jp2's item 39, as he requested. Since she has been the only staff member to delete items on that ground, it seems fairly obvious to me that, in the absence of a membership vote explicitly establishing a policy of "delete on request of item author," it's not going to happen again. I would, for future reference, prefer to have a clearer sense of the community. 'Twould probably be best 'twere a policy or membership proposal.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
No. Every current staff member is aware that deleting an item on request is -not- a policy that everyone agrees to, that in fact it would lead to a hue and cry in Coop.
This response has been erased.
Look at the obvious: If item deletion per request were never a staff policy, why was that specific event brought to a vote? Please answer that.
This response has been erased.
It was brought to a vote because jp2 seems to find it amusing.
This response has been erased.
slip.
I'm getting really tired of jp2 and cyklone insisting they should be able to dictate Grex policy to the rest of us.
This response has been erased.
re 81 And what makes you think your ideas of GreX policy our 'better'? In fact, they're worse! You've already gotten rid of two upstanding users.
Re #81: And I'm getting really tired of having my words misstated by people like you and jep.
This response has been erased.
I still don't understand the US vs THEM point that gull professes in nearly every response. It would be easier to understand his point if he clarified what he means.
Re resp:85: If you don't like the way Grex is run, why do you have an account here? It seems to me like you're only here to make trouble. Just like jp2, who is such a poor loser he's copy-and-pasted responses to a large number of items in agora about how he's afraid his posts will get scribbled. I'm sick of the conference crapfloods, pointless policy debates, staff abuse, and endless backbiting and carping that a certain group of M-Netters come here to cause. I tolerated it for a while, and I even supported some of jp2's arguments when I thought he was genuinely interested in improving things. But it's gradually become obvious to me that, like naftee, he's just interested in making trouble. His methods are just more cleverly disguised. I can only assume this is just some kind of sick game for you people.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Yeah, and I remember when we were having "meaningful policy debates" with M-Netters about whether or not it was legal to photocopy driver's licenses. The free speech arguments would be meaningful if they weren't so obviously just another example of a pattern that involves, for example, arguments about whether it's a "violation of free speech" for some of naftee's accounts to be locked for trying to fill up agora with large text files.
jp2, you are just so tiresome now. Read this carefully: valerie did something most peole didn't like. But it was done. staff have no history of restoring stuff due to vandalism, so it was not their duty to "hop to it" and restore the killed items. A vote by the membership to compell that failed. valerie's unauthorized act does not set a precedent that other staff will use to justify similar rogue acts, even if the items are not restored. Further, all this does not establish a grex policy of censorship. I know it it is useless to say it, but I will anyway: Give it up, move on.
Joe, re: 49, in 47 I was wondering about 46. :) It has become painfully obvious to me that nothing will change Jamie's mind in regard to the supposed precedent that Valerie's actions have caused. I don't read the two votes here as stating that items can now be deleted on request anymore than I would imagine all Grex users hated the color red if a vote was passed saying apples and strawberries were not everyone's favorite fruits. So I'll just try to respectfully agree to disagree with Jamie's interpretation of the events of the past month.
This response has been erased.
Fair enough, an excellent point. Please allow me to rephrase in this way:
I don't see the precedent of Valerie's actions precipitating a new implied
policy of deleting entire items at the author's request.
My dictionary suggested this for precedent:
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:
Precedent \Prec"e*dent\, n.
1. Something done or said that may serve as an example to
authorize a subsequent act of the same kind; an
authoritative example.
[1913 Webster]
I don't view her actions as a valid precedent. I understand and respect
that you do view them as valid precedent.
This response has been erased.
I don't think the threat is meaningless. I feel rather certain that if I decided to unilaterally delete entire items that I would be dismissed from staff rather quickly and that the items would be restored. My opinion is that the vote said we're not going to retroactively restore this first time, but staff had better not go around doing this anymore.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Sorry, I've often been accused of not being logical. I'm just informing you of what my opinion on the matter is. Remember, Grex isn't a game of Nomic and it certainly isn't Constitutional Law. :)
This response has been erased.
tod slipped. The votes said 37 members decided that the items in question were not to be restored. I don't see anywhere in the votes where it said the staff has no problem with censorship. I will not make the same leap you did to that conclusion.
This response has been erased.
as only one member of the staff and a junior one at that, I didn't act because Valerie's actions were unprecedented and I hadn't a clue about the proper way to deal with them. Perhaps Grex will have to raise the bar for staff members to those having law degrees and Supreme Court clerking experience to understand all the ramifications of censorship and free speech. I didn't know what to do and I looked to the membership and the discussions taking place.
This response has been erased.
You did just fine, kip
re 90 That was polytarp. re 101 You don't consider a staffer with root power deleting selective items with posts by several different users an act of censorship? If, say, a staffer were to go through and delete all of your responses without your authority, do you consider that censorship?
This response has been erased.
You call that subtle?
This response has been erased.
Now _that_ is subtlety.
Thanks, Kip. If I'd gone back a few responses when 47 was presented, I'd probably have realised what you meant. I take the defeat of your proposal, jp2, to mean that the *membership* does NOT want the items restored. Staff's job is to keep the system up and running and to do want the membership wants.
James seems to think because staff have the technical power to act on the policies and precedents he believes have been established, staff are somehow dodging their responsibilities as he sees them, by not acting as he wishes. Staff on the other hand, collectively defer to the membership for judgement on policy issues outside of a few well established areas relating to the technical operation of the system.
I think the result of the vote was a bad one on principle, but I don't see any point in challenging its legitimacy. I do hope that should another staff member spazz out and start killing items, Grex won't let them benefit from their actions next time.
GUYS SHE DIDN,T SPAZZ OUT' OR GO POSTAL%. SHE WAS AS COOL AS ICE.
BTW, I've been experimenting with the "kill" command; it appears to work with any number of responses by the person who created the item. The software should follow the policy, not vice versa. Still, I'm inclined to draft the final language to allow an item creator to completely remove it at any time before any other user (including the creator using a different login id) responds to it.
I'd like the voting on this item to end at midnight on the end of a Sunday through Thursday, so I'm going to keep the discussion of the text itself open until Wednesday or Thursday of this week.
The current state of the proposal's text is:
An item's author, the person who originally enters an item,
may remove that item at any time before someone responds
to it using a different login ID. After another person
has responded, an item may be removed only if it poses a
clear and present danger to the system or it clearly abets
criminal activity. Examples of the former include a very
large item that attempts to fill all available disk space,
items posted more than once or in several conferences at
once, repetitive items and items that contain terminal
escape sequences. Examples of the latter include items
that contain social security numbers or credit card numbers.
These examples are not exhaustive; fair-witnesses and staff
have discretion to act in the best interests of grex and
its users in accordance with the general policy.
Hmmm... The proposal refers to an item being "removed"; my question is, "from what?" The system? The conference in which it was originally posted? Any conferences to which it was subsequently linked?
Would "delete" be clearer?
Somehow, I can't picture an author asking that the item be linked and then
deleting/removing it before someone else could respond to it. Nonetheless,
should the author want to do so, the linked version should be removed, too.
Still, should it be desired, the author can find any linked versions with
the command
ls -i /bbs/{conferenceName}/_{itemNumber}
which will give the inode number {inodeNumber} and then
find /bbs -inum {inodeNumber} -print
'Twould be a good idea to freeze the item while looking for the linked
versions.
I'm wondering what this proposal is designed to do - prevent something like the Valerie episode? Prevent someone's petition for item removal from being considered at all? Most of the people who voted to remove last time around did so saying rules aren't more important than people? So, what's the deal here?
I still think that if Valerie had thought that item authors could NOT delete their items, she wouldn't have removed hers. If her items had not been removed, there would have been no ground to consider removing jep's. So I'm hoping to make clear the answer to the question, "Can item authors remove their items?" If the answer is "No," then items won't be deleted in future. If the answer is "Yes," then staff and fair-witnesses cannot be excoriated for complying with and assisting authors' desires. I don't think petitions can be prevented. I do think we can make it easier to refuse the petitions. Note that the membership didn't vote to "remove"; the membership voted to "not restore." Some consider the distinction slight. I don't. BTW, as has been pointed out before, petitioning for removal will result in many copies of an item being made. Freezing and retiring do not prevent those copies from being made. If this proposal fails, then we can look at the other questions.
Re #119: No, changing "remove" to "delete" wouldn't help. I don't understand what the proposal would and wouldn't allow. Under the proposed policy, would it be okay for a fairwitness, cfadm, or root (the only people who can remove items, except for the author in limited circumstances) to delete any item in conference A as long as it was still visible in some other conference B?
So as smallbusiness fairwitness, I can't remove a religious spam itme that someone enters in every conference if a twit has posted sarcastic response? I also could not remove it from coop if even one person had entered any kind of response?
The answer to your question, cmcgee, is in the sentence,
After another person has responded, an item may be removed
only if it poses a clear and present danger to the system
or it clearly abets criminal activity.
How can this sentence be reworded to include an item inappropriate to
the conference, but not be subject to whim?
I don't see the claim that an item hasn't "really" been deleted because
it's in another conference as a defense, remmers. The intent is to make
clear that we don't want items deleted from the system, I think.
I'm not sure how to handle a request to unlink an item. On the one hand,
I see this as different from completely removing an item. On the other
hand, I can see where the folks who participate in only one conference
would see it differently. For example, I read the letter-match items in
the Language conference instead of the Puzzles conference. Someone who
read only Puzzles could easily resent the items being removed from that
conference.
So I don't know.
> I still think that if Valerie had thought that item authors could NOT > delete their items, she wouldn't have removed hers. I don't want to pick a scab, but I think the evidence shows the contrary, so please don't bring up this irrelevant issue any more.
Good point. While I commend gelinas for his efforts, I'm not sure the recent past is addressed by this. To me the issue is what do you do when staff goes berserk and abuses their privileges? In those situations, I would like a policy in which the presumption is that all such damage must be undone ASAP.
Yes, I read that sentence to clearly forbid me from removing such an item. I think we are painting ouselves into a corner here trying to make explict rules for decisions like this. In its current formation, I'd vote no. I'd like fws to have better options.
Whereas I believe having a policy that it should not be done in the first place is sufficient. Usually, if something should not be done, the remedy when it is done is obvious. I especially think such to be the case with this policy.
This response has been erased.
tod, drop it. Can you suggest better wording, cmcgee?
This response has been erased.
Restore it, of course.
Once the policy is in place, no vote is required to undo its violation.
But then users will say that either the policy does not apply, or the actions do not fall in the category covered by the current policy. You should know this. It already happened.
This response has been erased.
How about something simpler, which still leaves fws discretion: Any user who has posted an item, or a response to an item, to a Grex conference from which that item has subsequently been removed may appeal that removal to the Board of Directors. If at least two members of the Board publicly announce that they consider the matter worthy of review, the Board will vote at their earliest convenience on whether to undo the item removal.
This response has been erased.
(This provides for fairly quick relief in the event of injust removal, while avoiding definitional difficulties. Also, a membership vote is always the default final arbiter, but hopefully, a board vote would reflect the likely outcome and thereby short- circuit that tedious process.)
If you think this is micromanagement, you have a very unusual definition of the word.
This response has been erased.
It's amusing when you argue with and insult yourself, but you're both wrong. Your way would force the system to attempt to define exactly what can and cannot be removed for cause -- a patently impossible task. The only practical option is to explicitly support the existing system of discretion in the hands of those to whom responsibility has been given, and back it up with an appeal process which frees the system from this burdensome, tedious and seemingly endless recrimination.
This response has been erased.
I think Valerie's doing it.
The backup tapes that were in the Pumpkin are now in my house, for off-site storage. I don't know who will do the next back-up, nor when.
Re #143: LOL
This response has been erased.
I bet one night valerie'll go over to gelinas' house, get him drunk, have sex with him and steal the tapes.
gelinas's.
#146 exactly expresses the problem: Policies have to assume reasonable people people behaving reasonably. Maliciousness such as #146 describes is not easily controlled.
This response has been erased.
No, you'd just find something else to carp about. As you've amply demonstrated over the past several years.
This response has been erased.
Proverbs 26:4, Joe.
I'm going to try again:
An item's author, the person who originally enters an item,
may remove that item from the system, in its entirety,
at any time before someone responds to it using a different
login ID. After another person has responded, an item may be
removed only if it violates the general policies of grex or
of the conference it was entered in, or if it clearly abets
criminal activity. Examples of the former include a very
large item that attempts to fill all available disk space,
items posted more than once or in several conferences at
once, repetitive items and items that contain terminal
escape sequences. Examples of the latter include items
that contain social security numbers or credit card numbers.
These examples are not exhaustive; fair-witnesses and staff
have discretion to act in the best interests of grex and
its users in accordance with general policies.
Specific changes, for those tired of close readings:
1) specified that the discussion is of removing the item from
the system.
2) Used "violates the general policies . . . " instead of "clear
and present danger."
I don't have an easy way to test killing linked items, but that's an
implementation issue, not a policy issue. :)
This response has been erased.
Ok, I'm much more comfortable with that. I can support this.
I've sent a message to voteadm with response 154 above as the text of the proposal. I'd kind of wanted the vote to end at a midnight that Mark would be able to get to the mailbox the next day, but I guess it really doesn't matter. I have not included a remedy for violation in the text because I really don't consider it necessary: the remedy to a clear abuse is usually itself clear. It's when it's not clear that something is an abuse that things get muddy.
HUH?!?! The remedy was clear last time and the right thing was not done.
No, the remedy was NOT clear. Some of us are still not convinced the removals were abuse. If this proposal is aprroved, future such removals would clearly be abuse.
This response has been erased.
It's clear that you are Puerile. How can it not be clear that you're a ninny?
It's clear that you guys don't get along, but I've never seen anything that would indicate to me that Valerie had the right to do what she did.
This response has been erased.
Joe G. has asked that this be moved to a vote, so the vote is scheduled to start at midnight tonight. Voting will end at midnight ten days later. Since there's another vote already in progress, frequent voters will notice that the two-choice menu is back. If you try to vote on Joe's proposal before midnight tonight though, you'll see a message that the polls haven't opened yet.
This response has been erased.
Thank you, jp2. :)
This response has been erased.
I'm trying to understand the amount of latitude this would give for individual conferences to set their own policies. For example, would it be consistent with this proposal for the Classified Conference to have the policy that an item advertising something for sale can be removed when the item is sold, or if the seller decides not to sell it? Would it be consistent for a fairwitness to set the policy that items more than one year old could be deleted without notice, provided that the policy is adequately publicized to the conference participants? Or could be deleted on the request of the person who posted the item, again presuming that the policy was adequately publicized? I guess I'm unclear on the intent of the part that says "...an item may be removed only if it violates the general policies of Grex or the conference it was entered in," relative to these examples.
#154 would seem to merely make explicity what most people (except maybe valerie) thought already was the policy on item deletion. Since it seems not to proport more than that, I can recommend a "yes" vote. That is, "for all the good it will do", given that rogue fw's & staff...
Stop being idiots. None of you are better than jp2.
(I am also an exception, along with valerie. Which is why I made the proposal.) Yes, all of your examples would fall under "permitted removals", John, *presuming* the conference-specific policies were promulgated in advance. In the case of adopting a new policy, I'd leave it to the conference participants to decide whether items should be 'grandfathered.'
This is absurdly obscure for something that's public.
I voted "no" on this. I don't think it solves any real problems, and it creates the potential for more confusion.
I read someone say that they voted "No" on this proposal because they don't feel it solves any real problem. I disagree; *IF* this proposal is approved, then we will have a better idea of when items can be removed. This will do nothing about the current controversy, but nor is it intended to. It won't _prevent_ a future occurrence, but it will make plainer what to do, since that which should not be removed should be restored.
This response has been erased.
There was not agreement that the material should not have been removed.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Valerie's actions got put up for a vote because there was no clear guidance on what to do. This proposal would provide that guidance, should there be another occurrence.
Did you know testicles come from the same stuff as ovaries?
This response has been erased.
At least the "status quo" would be recognised.
This response has been erased.
Really? You'd rather vote for a proposal that authors can remove items at any time? Interesting. Perhaps it's time to think aobut what you want and what you can get.
> There was not agreement that the material should not have been removed. That is absolute crap - unless you are going to claim that a couple of nutcases unable to comprehend what everyone else acknowledged constitutes "not agreement". I don't wish to dredge things up, but I'm not going to sit by and let revisionist history go unchallenged. What the disagreement was about was re: the items, wrongfully removed, should be restored. The voters spoke.
This response has been erased.
I think it ended up more SOL than SOP... ;-)
Sorry albaugh, from my point of view there was not AGREEMENT that the material should not have been removed. I thought that the fairwitness had the power to make the decision and remove the material. Valerie used her staff powers to do something she couldn't do as a user. But I always thought that if she had just been patient enough to ask the FW to do it, we would not have gotten embroiled in this mess.
This response has been erased.
Despite albaugh's revisionism, not removing items was NOT SOP. It may not have been done very often, but *some* people thought items _could_ be removed. I was one of them. The disagreement persists: I _still_ think items can be removed. (But I'm not going to remove any as things stand now.) Convince me I'm wrong: approve this proposal.
This response has been erased.
If the Item is not one that should be removed, never.
There was no reason why those items should have been removed.
This response has been erased.
I don't see a difference between "staff guidelines" and "expectations for end users." This proposal is about the expectations OF the users and members of the community (for lack of a better word). Staff are expected to comply with the EXPRESSED desires of the users and members. (Like the First Law of Robotics: A robot cannot _knowingly_ harm a human being or, by inaction, allow a human to come to harm.)
This response has been erased.
Let me be more precise, then, for the slow to comprehend: There was widespread agreement that the items should *not* have been removed in the manner they were. There could have been a thoughtful debate on whether such items could / should be removed, but it was moot: valerie preempted any such discussions. Anyone who maintains that valerie was justified to abuse her staff capabilities to remove the items because there might have been agreement by grexers that it would be OK to remove such items (e.g. by a FW) is full of crap. It is true that there was insufficient outrage etc. by grexers to undo the harm, as witnessed by the vote to restore the items failing. But to mix it all together and say it's all the same thing is dishonest.
Agreed. I think.
This response has been erased.
Good point.
Find it as disengenuous as you want. There is no other mechanism on grex to determine "what the users want" than the vote program. Discussions were held up the wazoo, most people decided "leave it alone". They just reaffirmed that position. Time to move on to the next outrage...
Re. 197: T hat is for the subset of people actually reading and discussing it in coop. Less than half the people did that; the rest voted based solely on Ms Mates's lie-ridden E-mail.
This response has been erased.
I betcha that a lot of people did read the coop discussion but didn't participate. You can't say that people voted on the basis of the Valerie email alone, since it's hard to know what everyone used as a basis without asking them what they voted and why. I didn't even get the email, so I know it wasn't a factor in any voting I may have done.
This response has been erased.
Re 197: I do not maintain "that valerie was justified to abuse her staff capabilities to remove the items because there might have been agreement by grexers that it would be OK to remove such items." I *have* argued that it was NOT abuse. I *have* argued that removing the baby-diary items was within her rights. No matter *how* accomplished. Now, let's move on: Can items be removed? If so, under what circumstances? Does the current proposal accurately describe what should be grex policy on the removal of items? If yes, vote yes. If no, vote no. If this proposal fails, we will, in my opinion, need further discussion to craft a statement that does reflect grex policy on the removal of items.
This response has been erased.
So vote "yes" on the this proposal.
Re. 196: We CAN know that MOST people who voted DIDN"T read the coop conference, let alone paricipate in it, because of the logs.
And janc's nifty item.
The vote on this has ended. I've emailed the treasurer. Once Mark has certified the voter list, I'll post the results.
I'll need to check the box tomorrow, so I'll mail John after I do.
Mark emailed me the updated voter list, so here are the results.
Number of members voting: 40 out of 77 eligible
Yes 21
No 19
The motion passes.
Yet no-one has any fucking idea what it does.
This response has been erased.
Exact wording is in response #154.
This response has been erased.
No, I don't think it can be twisted to include parody items. It's not intended to be so twisted, any way.
This response has been erased.
uh ?
Past experience has been that such duplicate items are caught before people reply substantively to them. The responses I've seen have been "This is a duplicate" and "Kill it, please," responses that shouldn't cause a problem when removed with the offending item. Others would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis by those involved.
This response has been erased.
YEs, because they're about a DEAD MUSICIAN. Get it? HAhahaahaha
Not after people have responded to them.
It was a joke.
Why don't you just post once and ask someone to link?
(Because that wouldn't test the wording of the just-approved policy.)
This response has been erased.
This item violates Grex's general principles. It must be deleted now.
#229: /s/item/response
Keep in mind, other, that even if only response contains the actual violating material, the policy Grex just adopted means the whole item has to go.
Then why hasn't item 7 in the agora40 conference been deleted yet, even though I've asked for it to be gone PRECISELY because it contains information that JEP wished to be gone ?
UYEAH' ANSWER THIS JERKS"
allo
TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE
You have several choices: