An Act
To restore items killed during the first week of 2004.
Be it enacted by the Members of Cyberspace Communications,
Section 1. Restoration of Killed Items.
(a) (1) The items previously numbered 81, 106, 142, 145, 117, and 113
of the femme conference and items previously numbered 87, 102,
105, 108, 110, and 112 of the smalls conference shall be
restored from back up tape and returned to their previous
places within the conferencing system.
(2) All posts within items referred to in this subsection authored
by the users known as "popcorn" or "valerie" shall be scribbled
prior to restoration.
(b) (1) The member resolution passed on February XX, 2004 is hereby
repealed.
(2) The item previously numbered 63 in the agora40 conference and
the item previously numbered 11 in the agora41 conference
shall be restored from back up tape and returned to their
previous places within the conferencing system.
(3) All posts within items referred to in this subsection authored
by the users known as "jep," "popcorn," or "valerie" shall be
scribbled prior to restoration.
Section 2. Allowances for Linked Items.
Where applicable, items linked across multiple conferences shall be
relinked as nearly as possible in their original configuration.
Section 3. Implementation.
The Board of Directors shall appoint a staff member responsible for the
restoration of the items listed in Section 1 of this act. The
designated staff member shall, prior to restoration, publish a list of
authors responding to each item. Each author may then request to have
their responses to any items listed scribbled prior to restoration.
Such requests must be made publicly, such as in an item in the coop
conference, and within ten days of the publication of the author's list.
109 responses total.
haha
remmers, where's that measure you're working on?
Give it a rest. You have been voted down twice already. With such a large majority that I don't see it changing to your side at all.
It costs Jamie nothing to keep doing this, forever.
This response has been erased.
I'm actually curious to see if this one will get an even higher percentage of "No" votes than the last one.
It's about the same as asking yourself if you can get any gayer than GreX is.
You know, I came to this argument incredibly late. So instead of seeing how it was all going to play out, I got to read it all at once. And I got to seriously wonder just what the hell was going on with Grex. Can someone tell me please? First off, I am friends with John. A fairly good friend in some ways, I'd like to think. And while I've never met Valerie, I consider her a friend as well. I post on her current baby diary, have apologized for my making fun of her on m-net and consider her an invaluable source of information and warmth. Secondly, I can't believe that I feel so betrayed by both of them. Strangely, I am far more upset with John than anyone. Yes, Valerie did wrong - I won't deny it. But her wrong can be restored. John saying "Please wipe out my items because I'm scared of the repercussions"? Please. Like he wasn't warned about a bizillion times . . . . Thirdly. Censorship. Do I feel censored? In a way, yes. I contributed a fair bit to the divorce items, as, if any of you recall, I was getting divorced at the same time. Were my words stolen from me? Sure. And as many objectors have pointed out, I should have saved my words myself if they were that important to me. But then, why did I have to? It's true, if an act of nature destroyed them, I'd be sad, but I'd move on. But they haven't been destroyed. They are on a backup tape. I mean, if I got John's permission and I asked for a copy of the items, could I have it? I said a lot of things on there. It was nice to go back and look at them and realize how far I'd come, in terms of how I feel about my marriage splitting up. The best part of this whole thing? Valerie is gone. And John has turned tail and run. Grex is cliquish. I know this. But I feel it truly condoned a wrong act with another wrong act. And as for Glenda's "give it a rest" remark, why? Because you've had enough? Because nothing anyone says will change your mind? Because you don't want to think about it anymore? (Given your schedule, I'd almost consider that valid.) I guess I just don't get it. It wasn't right what was done, and I don't get why it's being backed up.
Well, at this point I do think that Valerie went a bit too far. But at the same time, the discussion of the restoration issue was effectively forced by jp2 and others, and I still can't see what possible good they were up to as opposed to just doing it for their own amusement. It certainly had the effect of making a lot of us "circle the wagons" in the argument.
This response has been erased.
Brooke - I'd like to give it a rest because I got sick to death of reading keatses and keatses of abuse and bitterness every single day for a month and a half. We voted on it, which is what we do when there is disagreement. I don't know what's left to say at this point.
What's left to say is your vote, and the majority vote, was an unprincipled vote to do personal favors for favored persons because, as scott put it so well, you were "circling the wagons" against the noisy mnetters. Instead of putting aside your prejudices, reasoning things out and doing what is right, many of you twisted your logic and principles into utterly unspportable positions. So history will now show (unless some of you pussies vote to delete these discussions) that when it came time to do the right thing, ya'll wimped out. If I'm fighting a battle with my back to the wall, I want todd on my side, and not because he's an ex-marine. Todd stood up for principles that mean something. Most of the voters did not. In my book that makes ya'll cowards. Which merits a big FUCK YOU to all the anti-restorationists.
YEAH< PUSSIES FUCK YOU
This response has been erased.
I'm floatin' tod's boat. AND I"M BITTER< GODDAMINIT
<sigh>
Okay, I'll throw another log on the fire. What is left to say is that wrongs were committed, some large, some small. None of the "solutions" proposed were going to solve or cause less harm than what had already been done. While I wasn't in favor of John's divorce item being deleted, once the attention was focused on it, any restoration was actually going to cause more damage than if nothing had been deleted in the first place. You know, at first there was some "principled dissent" but it all too quickly descended into shrill rhetoric. Had it not drifted so, I doubt the resolution tod is referring to would have come up. Now, feel free to make me regret opening my mouth.
What is your basis for saying "any restoration was actually going to cause more damage than if nothing had been deleted in the first place."?
I wish valerie and jep would have been willing to accept a solution where they deleted their own posts and then asked people to delete thier posts too. So few posts would have remained that I suspect that the same thing as having the items deleted would have been accomplished. However, I have no control over other people and things didnt go the way I would have wanted them to go. I think the real point here is that the members voted and now we have to live with that result. Maybe I dont think it was the best outcome but I cant go back and change things. I think that it is time to move on now. Bitching and whining about it isnt going to change anything. Too many people have their defenses up even for more rational discussion to be effective. I would like to suggest that maybe we can kind of give things a rest for now and perhaps revisit the issue of who controls whose words around here at a later time. Some time, perhaps, when we can have the discussion rationally without even mentioning valerie or jep.
You're right, that was too broad. None of the suggested restorations were going to cause less harm because they only dealt with John and Valerie's posts, and not direct quotations. Which along with the increased attention both items would have received due to the debate would have provided fodder for parody of Valerie or persecution of John. The very things I believe they were trying to avoid.
19 slipped in, fair and excellent points.
I totally understand being sick of this, two months after the fact. And I can see how people see this as a "grex vs. m-net" thing. But I'm on both systems. And I don't think I've said anythign to insult or annoy anyone. And yes, I truly wish that I'd been here back in the heat of things, as maybe I could have contributed to a different outcome. I do want to say this: Calling someone a pussy is never going to get them to listen to what you are saying. Insulting them until the cows come home is never going to get them to listen to what you are saying. Knowing Jamie in real life and considering him a friend and knowing how he is will not make any person on this system who thinks he's a complete jackass change their mind, no matter how much I say, "No really - he's a great guy and one of the most unconditional people I know." Jamie and I have spoken in the past on his social retardation, but that's how Jamie is. I cannot speak for our little Canuck friends, so I won't. Having met Cyklone in real life and having known Todd for what, 4 years or so - I can say that I like and respect these men and their opinions. Yes, we keep bringing it up. And yes, it's annoying. Seeing anti-choice protesters at the Supreme Court always annoys me, as I feel that a decision was made in 1973. But that doesn't stop them from protesting or feeling that they can and should further their cause. And no, I'm not making a comparison in causes, more in styles of those with the cause. They think a woman's right to choose is wrong - I feel a person has the right to delete or not delete what they post on an open system, but not delete what someone else posts. And I truly don't understand how people on this system don't feel the same, as while it seems as if we certainly don't agree on many issues, it also seems as if we do agree that you have the right to say it.
I have said in the past that I think it's really how they argued their points and said what they did that polarized people more than the actual issue. I *personally* don't have an attachment to my own words being preserved so I wasn't as outraged as many people were about that bit -- although I do understand that if you expect there to be preservation (and many think/thought that was implicit in the system) then this is indeed outrageous.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
/sigh.
Twila, I can understand not being personally attached - and sometimes I'm not. In the divorce item, I was. There is nothing more personal to me than what was going on in my life. And I've thought a lot about your comments on editing, and as much as I (and I know you do too) love to read, it made total sense and I was appreciative of editors and their work. I think my issue is this: In my eyes, an infraction was committed. I don't understand why people had to vote on whether to keep the items deleted. IMO, they should have been restored and the authors should have scribbled their responses/contributions. Imploring other people to do the same in those items is, in mind, fair, but I can honestly say I wouldn't have done it. As I've said before, the divorce item was very pertinent to me. They meant something. And it is my error that I did not save copies. I will not be so blind next time. But, IMO, it is Grex's error (and when I say this, I mean the staff and the membership) to allow them to be taken from me. And that's what I don't understand.
"I have said in the past that I think it's really how they argued their points and said what they did that polarized people more than the actual issue." That demonstrates *exactly* what is wrong with Grex. If you can't look beyond the style of argument to analyze its substance then you have no right to claim adherence to the principles grex allegedly represented. Many of ya'll don't seem to understand the point that free speech means allowing people to present their ideas in their own words. And FWIW, I think twila's statement is a cop out, since even before the arguments heated up there was clearly a group of people predisposed to doing personal favors for favored persons. I didn't ramp up my insults until certain users repeatedly insulted my intelligence with arguments a middle schooler could have picked apart.
Wow, lots of slippage. I agree with Todd and Brooke.
Cyklone, remember - you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.
This response has been erased.
Sure. Me too.
What I'm the most sick of is the name-calling and ascribing of motives behind words or actions. There was a disagreement about how to handle what was done. A vote was held. Some / many were unhappy over the outcome. Deal with it. Bring it up for a vote again, if it amuses you. Here's a radical idea: How about another rogue staff carrying out the "unauthorized" restoration of the items from tape???
I've been doing tons of reading today on the 9/11 Commission/Clarke Testimony, and I came across a quote in an Op-Ed piece by E.J. Dionne Jr. "One great thing about democraciesis that they make it very hard for secrets to be kept forever, for claims to go unchallenged indefinitely and for those in power to escape responsibility." There is a lot of name-calling going on and I hate it, as I think all it does is add to the lack of credibility. I will look past what I'm being called to see what's being said, but it is just one more needless hurdle. Here is my request of those on the other side of the issue: Why was it right, in your eyes, to allow the continued deletion of the items?
Re #30: I tried rationality and I got bullshit.
(cyklone, I recommend to your attention Gerry Spence's book "How to Argue and Win Every Time." I think you would find it useful. I know that I am finding it so.) edina, as I said at the time, I think item *authors*, the people who enter the item into the conferencing system, have the right and should have the power to remove their item at any time, no matter who has responded to it, and when the item is removed, the responses should be removed as well. Therefore, I had no problem with valerie removing her 'baby diary' items. The outrage over her action convinced me that things were different here. So I waited to see what the membership wanted. I also argued for accepting her actions. BTW, I felt that her decision NOT to remove Item 39, when jp2 requested it, demonstrated that my view was not as generally accepted as I expected. The recently approved proposal on item deletions will, in my opinion, forestall a recurrence because it has made explicit what many implicitly accepted and expected.
So, seeing as Grex has been around for a while the original FOunders own
everything that's been written here?
THat's farcical, and deliberately so. THe iten entry might belong to
the intiiating poster, but nothing past that point that the origionator hasn't
contributed would EVER belong to the, in any case. USage, in the form of
posting an item is one thing, but ownership is a totally diffent concept.
Ownership and use were confused, or worse, and tend result was the erasure
of total line of conversation. At NO time did I or do i EVER, transfer
ownership of whatever I write here to the styaff or board. If THAT is non
profit practice or worse, bylaw, please inform me here.
If that's the case ,i'll be out of here so fast you'll hear the somic
boom.
No, it's not the case, lowclass. I thought it was, but I've since learned I was wrong.
When you gonna learn you're wrong about /etc/passwd, chump?
re 33 I volunteered gelinas for that job.
Hey guys: Item 7 in the agora40 conference contains a lot of content that eventually migrated to the divorce item created by jep. Is there evidence that this conference has had increased activity due to people attempting to find out more about the situation?
Re #37: The issue has never been ownership, Carl. Grex stopped publishing some text, but at no point did anyone asserted that had anything to do with who owned it. Brooke: as I said, I'm utterly sick of this whole thing. Everyone has already stated their opinions many times here. (I hope you realized that the discussion took place in many, many items in coop? Dunno if you read them all. If you did read them all in a day, God help you.) So I don't feel like starting the argument all over again by stating mine again. Email me if you really want to know.
This response has been erased.
Question is, if *gelinas* is an idiot, WHAT does that make polytwerp?
"The issue has never been ownership, Carl. Grex stopped publishing
some text, but at no point did anyone asserted that had anything to do
with who owned it."
BULLSHIT! That is *EXACTLY* what this was all about. The
anti-restorationists voted to strip non-favored users of their rights to
control their posts in order to do personal favors for favored persons.
The problem is that feeble-minded people started making specious arguments
about how the users never lost any rights because they could repost their
words. I very patiently (at first) explained the fallacy of that argument.
Sadly, a bunch of unprincipled fools either didn't have the brain-power or
didn't want to use what they had to understand this very obvious point.
If the anti-restorationists really believe this is NOT about ownership,
then here is my proposal:
RETURN MY DAMN POSTS!!!!!!!!!!!!
YEAH< ANTI_RESTORATIONISTS!
resp:29 I do too. (I like the way Brooke put things.) resp:36 if I understand it right, responses to an item should be controlled by those who write them... because they have merit and worth of their *own*. I'm not an expert on copyright law or any sort of that precedence, but I think the argument that has been put forth is valid. An item author should *not* delete responses even if he/she decides to delete the original item-- I think the rights belong to those who wrote the responses. At least, it would seem to be that way with the precedence of the scribble command (and how freeze and retire now stand). Scribble seems to point to a response by response, post by post, ownership.
Arguing against response 36 is unnecessary. The recently approved proposal on item deletion contradicts that response.
Contradict isn't the right word.
Re #45: The ownership of a response has no bearing on whether Grex is obliged to keep publishing it.
don't hurt yourself, aruba.
I see Grex sort of like a library or a bookstore. Books go out of print or are removed from the shelves to make room for newer books all the time. Sometimes a book sits there and gathers dust for a while before it gets noticed as not moving. Once it is noticed that it isn't moving, isn't being bought or checked out or even taken from the shelf and glanced at; it is taken off the shelf and either boxed up to be put in storage, given away, remaindered, or just thrown out. I haven't heard any massive outcry from authors of those books because they were permenantly removed from the shelf. Libraries and bookstore don't give guarantees that books will remain on the shelf forever, neither does Grex. Nowhere on Grex has it ever been said that items will stay around and never removed.
It's absurd to use that as an excuse for unecessary censorship, though.
That's for damn sure. Once again long-time grexers struggle to create pointless analogies to justify personal favors for favored persons and to justify denying users the right to control what happens to their posts. I'd love to see where in Grex's policies or terms of use it says Grex is like a library or bookstore where managements controls the "stock" of words.
This response has been erased.
Hmmmm. About the library analogy . . .well, the LOC keeps a copy of every book published in the US. Soooo, in the spirit of that theory, there will always be a place I can get a copy of the book. I have no place to get a copy of what was written in the items (some of which I contributed to heavily). Mark, I know you're sick of it. I apologize that I'm such a johnny-come lately. But I really feel strongly about this. The divorce items being deleted really hit me where it hurts - and I would hope it hurt you as well, as I always got a lot out of your postings.
I think that there is some point to the library analogy. Items are often removed from Grex due to inactivity. Sometimes they are archived but it has always been my understanding that they are not. So we should all understand that what we say here isnt necessarily going to stay here forever. However, the major difference is that typically before items are removed, there is notice given before hand. This notice is given so that anyone who wants to can make their own archive copies before the item is deleted. That didnt happen in this case. What happened is that the members decided to make an exception to the usual way of doing things. Now, we can argue about if that was a good decision or a bad decision all day but it doesnt really matter because it is done now. Those items will not be restored. But, Brooke, maybe someone made some personal copies of those items. You might want to ask around. It is is possible that someone did who would be willing to give you a copy. I heard a rumor that there were copies floating around. You could also see if there is anyone on staff willing to get your words from the deleted items for you although since that would involve a lot of work, I wouldnt necessarily expect someone to be willing to do it. But you never know.
The library analogy has no applicability to this at all. You're letting Glenda pull a Jesuit rhetorical on you: she's defining the terms of the debate. This is bad, because she's doing it wrong.
This response has been erased.
Actually, Brooke, the Library of Congress does not always have a copy of every book printed in the United States. At least, I have found that their records have gaps (I have to check the web interface they have at times, and sometimes they have no record of holding a particular book when I've then gone on to find evidence that it does indeed exist). Anyway, that's beside the point. I can see where you would have very strong feelings about your words being lost and I would definitely take note of Slynne's advice and ask if anyone has a private copy or if there would be any way of getting a copy of what you wrote from the archived files. I feel kind of frustrated here (and I think a lot of people do) because I can see where you and some other people had very personal and timely posts made, and I can see that you would want to have a copy of them, but, on the other hand, as someone who has said things she would REALLY prefer weren't online anymore, I can see Jep and Valerie's feelings too, and sympathize with their wishes as well. If you had asked me before the divorce and baby diaries were deleted, I would have probably voted not to delete them. But since they were deleted, I saw no purpose in putting them back when some people seem to have made a habit of picking up hurtful things and poking at others with them just to see if you bleed the thousandth time as much as you did the first. (And while you can say that everyone ought to be tough and ready to take the abuse, the truth is that some people can't, and I'm more on that side than on the side of "right", if it comes to push vs. shove. Feelings and consideration over abstract principles.) I suspect that this will be ridiculed as "favors for favored persons" but in reality, I hurt for you, too.
Use paragraphs. It makes it easier to skim.
Brooke - the question before us wasn't whether the items should be deleted - in fact there seemed to be a broad consensus that people would have preferred they weren't. The issue was whether to restore them. To understand why people voted the way they did, you need to consider the difference.
Nothing she said implied she thought anything other than that, aruba. Stop using Jesuit rhetorical tricks again.
I wonder if there are any groups parcel CAN'T find it in his heart to insult.
re #60 "I saw no purpose in putting them back when some people seem to have made a habit of picking up hurtful things and poking at others with them" You're on the side of censorship for the simple fact that you disagree with a small crowd of parodyists? Wonderful. If that is the stance of the Grex membership, lets just call it what it is and remove the Blue Ribbon.
allo, tod
HI P
allo, tod
This response has been erased.
allo, jp2
As for the ludicrous suggestion we beg for our responses back from someone who might have them, I have done just that. While someone suggested in email it may be possible for them to return my posts, not a single person has come through yet. So lets stop creating even more red herrings. The smell of decaying fish is bad enough as it is . . . .
allo, cyklone
perhaps they do not exist, and it is time to forget about it.
Would you just "forget" about your dick if it started to rot ? I hope not!
Re #73: My understanding is they are on backup tapes. If someone destroys them without a member vote, I will consider that another act of staff vandalism.
Mark - I actually do understand the issue at hand. I don't get why members voted to keep the items deleted. At it's core, it is censorship, no matter how anyone tries to spin it as something else. And if people are comfortable with that, fine. But don't expect me to like it.
(When will the vote on this proposal begin? Since it was proposed before the proposal requiring supporting endorsements was passed, I think it shouldn't need the endorsements.)
I'm not comfortable with anything, Brooke. It was a difficult decision. But I voted in the way that I thought would best serve Grex.
Yup: Grexists: Not comfortable with anything.
GreXists, uncomfortable with their own wives, must share
This response has been erased.
My inattention and the fact that your request was sandwiched in among a lot of other verbiage. If you still with to go ahead with it, I'll start a vote today or tomorrow.
mmm, sandwich.
This response has been erased.
Voting will automagically start at midnight tonight (EDT). Democracy in action! :)
DAMMIT! I don't have happy on Grex.
That personal comment about how hte resolution has supposedly been defeated twice should NOT be there.
Painful as it is for me to do so, I agree with #87. Commentary on the proposal does not belong in the motd.
Yup. Once again, Grex staff engages in unethical behavior. It seems like only weeks ago Gelinas and others were claiming that Valerie's actions were an aberration, and that staff was unlikely run amok any time soon.
Hi! I'm the elections overseer assigned to Grex by the UN Elections and Democracy Comittee. I believe the comment in 87 refers to the following note, which appears in the MOTD: (NOTE: This proposal has already been voted on and defeated twice. Due to a recent change in the Grex bylaws, a recurrence of this unusual situation is unlikely.) -jhr This is, I think, a fairly clear example of the reigning party using the state-sponsored maedia to promote its own politicised agenda. It's not armed gunmen running away with ballot boxes, but it's close.
I agree with the UNELECT Committee's appraisal. This vote is already permanently tainted, and jp2 should be apologised to.
This response has been erased.
Now that we've heard from the twit committee...
No conspiracy or ruling-party stuff, just me acting on my own. Wasn't intended to be prejudicial, just a heads-up explaining the circumstances to people who don't follow Coop and suddenly found themselves voting on something they thought they'd already voted on. Hey, I voted for the first incarnation of the proposal and voted against the followups because I felt that a revote on something just decided, in the absence of new circumstances, was bad procedure. Anyhow, I've taken the parenthetical remark out of the motd. Reference to the disposition of the previous motions was probably inappropriate. I'm curious if folks think that a simple reference to the fact that this is a repeat vote, without mentioning the disposition of previous votes or other related circumstances, would have been appropriate. And don't hold back just to spare my feelings; if you think it'd be wrong, just say so. Us amock-runners have nerves of steel!
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
It was mostly factual, but I think could have been better worded, so as to stir up lesser controvery. In other news, anyone spot anything interesting about this output from the vote program? :-) > The polls are open through the end of the day (EDT) on Thursday, March 15.
Controversy isn't always bad; hyperbole is another story. Oops! Fixed the date. (The hazards of copy & paste.)
I thank plongeur for bringing the motd matter to our attention.
Hey, no problem, soup.
These votes are a moot point.
I think it was appropriate to point out that this was a new vote, so that people who log in infrequently wouldn't confuse it with the old vote.
FYI, about 9 days into the vote jp2 sent an e-mail (to members, I assume) with Subject = "The Current Grex Vote". I will ask him via e-mail if it is OK to post here. Naturally it seeks a Yes vote on the proposal.
My spam filter sent that mail to /dev/null - I wonder which string it caught. Is mail from twits automatically filtered?
I received the mail, but only a day or two ago. The vote ends at midnight tonight (EDT), April 15. I'll post results when I've received a confirmed voter list from the treasurer.
Results: 35 members voted out of 76 who were eligible.
yes 4
no 31
The motion fails.
It doesn't.
(jp2 said it was OK to post the e-mail here, but I won't bother now.)
TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE
You have several choices: