I wish to make a user proposal that my two items recently deleted by loginid valerie not be restored. The two items were: agora40, item 63 agora41, item 11357 responses total.
This response has been erased.
I vote no.
I wish to ask that these items not be restored for the following reasons: 1) They were entered during a time of great stress and despair. During that time, I was diagnosed as undergoing major depression, and received presciption medication as well as therapeutic treatment for my illness. 2) The material I entered during that time was of a highly personal nature. I don't believe I would have entered it if I had been in my "right mind". I just didn't care then that I could be causing a future problem for myself. I care now. 3) Some of the material could potentially be used to harm both myself and my young son. 4) The material contained within them was focused on me, and my own personal problems, and had very little if any relevance to anyone else. 5) The items are currently deleted from the system. They were unused for a period of over a year. I believe they were not being read by anyone, and am certain they had not been responded to for over a year. I don't believe there is any compelling reason for these items to be restored. 6) The items were deleted by my request, with no intention to harm anyone else because of having them removed. I do not believe anyone *has* been harmed because of their removal. 7) The items would garner an unusual amount of interest if restored now, because of circumstances which have nothing to do with the intent or current content of the items. People who read the items now would be doing so because they'd been deleted and thus become part of a controversy, not because of any desire to help me through my problems of a couple of years ago. I appreciate the assistance of the members of Grex in gaining acceptance for this proposal. Thank you very much.
You have my permission to leave them deleted, but I don't think you should be embarrassed about your psychological problems caused by the stress of divorce. It was really educational for the rest of us when you shared them with us and I at least respect you for being able to do so.
I don't think it's true at all that the items had no relevance to other people, John. But I have no heart to fight you on this.
This response has been erased.
I think both this proposal and the previous one should be put on hold until Grex has an actual policy about whether people can delete their own items. I think it's wrong to try to short-circuit the policy decision this way. Life does not come with a rewind-erase button. Get used to it.
I disagree that those items should not be restored. Every time items get mass deleted, posts get mass deleted .etc, you are essentially re-writing and revising grex's history. Grex has been like a great experiment, and preserving what it was, and what it has become, is important. This is why I don't like Valerie mass deleting all her posts. In how many old items is she taking other people's comments out of context by removing her posts to which they were replying. Same thing with JEP removing his posts. This is affecting not just their posts, but to the posts of those who participated in those items. Suppose two users have a heated argument in an item, and then one of the users removes all their posts. Now anybody reading that item will only see the other user's posts, and not have the context of the whole discussion, and that other user could look bad. Is that fair to the other user? Does one user have the right to tear large holes in an item and potentially embarrass other users who posted in that item in the process?
I'm gonna have to vote to restore these items if the proposal comes up. I think that preventing the existence of a precedent for deleting other people's writing is more important to Grex than preventing the narrow risk that Jep might be embarrassed by something written by someone else in those items. Note that if these items are to be restored, we should of course make sure to remove jep's responses first if that's what he wants.
As I posted in previous item, I think that a user should only be able to scribble their items, and thereby potentially take other users comments in those items out of context, if it is reasonable to think that those other users are still around and would have the opportunity to clarify their comments. Grex should fully protect anything posted more than a year ago as "historical" and disallow scribbling of responses that old or older. When people post to grex, they have the right to assume that anything they post won't be taken out of context years down the line by some user who suddenly goes back and scribbles and puts holes in old items.
Unfortunately, that aspect was decided on when they decided to do away with the scribble log. jep, if your items are restored, and only your posts are deleted, would this serve your purpose? (I never really read those items through, so I wouldn't know.) What if we could get people who entered stuff that made obvious responses to what you said to delete their posts? I know this would take time, but I think it could be done. Most people who responded really cared about you, and I don't see them not doing this if it makes you feel better. I hate to see your items becoming the reason for allowing other users to delete items they've entered. We've already seen a huge loss to the system in terms of mass-scribbles, and it would be a shame to see any more.
In a reversal of my position on the publicly readable scribble log (due to copyright concerns primarily), I'll say this: Under absolutely no circumstances should posts which were removed by their proper owners be restored, even in the process of restoring comments made by others in response to or about those removed posts. Also, if any posts not made by the users who removed them or requested their removal are restored, any quotes of a full sentence or more from the properly removed text should also not be restored, but should be replaced by something along the lines of: [quotation removed by request of original owner/poster] Richard, your notion of "fairness" is remarkable only for its convoluted and self-serving nature.
bullshit other, fairness to one isn't fairness to all, and if I or any other user post in a conference, we have the right to think that if we leave the conf or the board, that our comments won't be later taken out of context. That items won't be cut up. If the items are new and the user(s) affected are still around, thats not an issue. But if a period of time has passed, and some or most of the users who posted in that item are no longer around, it is not fair for that item to be retroactively cut up. Why can't the scribble command be limited so it can't be used on posts over a year old?
This response has been erased.
I understand what richard is saying. About a year ago, polytarp made me make an apology in bbs for something (the details are hazy), but he later went in and scribbled all his posts. While I wasn't and am not upset about the result, it did make me look a little ridiculous with all his posts gone, and just my words. I personally think the scribble command should be revoked. But that's another issue.
This response has been erased.
re 13: You're right. You have the right to think anything you want. You do not, never have, and never will have the right to make sure anything you say, in any medium, will always and forever be presented only in the context in which it was originally said, which is exactly what you are trying to say you have the right to expect. I challenge you to correct me.
I think actually that any user who posted during the years that the scribble log was available, thereby posted under the assumption that other people's comments would be available and people would always be able to see the context. Therefore staff should have closed the scribble log only for new posts. Valerie is now going back and deleting eight or ten year old items, where people posted thinking the comments to which they were replying would always be available, even if scribbled, in the log. It is not fair to those old posters who posted in good faith thinking the scribble log would be around, for Valerie to go back now and delete her posts in those items now when that log is no longer around. Staff should restore everything deleted this week via backup tapes, and then make it so you can no longer scribble posts that were made when the scribble log was open, because it isn't open now and it isn't fair to other users
This response has been erased.
re #17...Other, this isn't a matter of "rights", it is a matter of decency. I am saying that Grex, for historical reasons, should strive to maintain the integrity of its old items, and should want to protect its old or former users. Anyone who posts on Grex should be able to expect that they can leave this board, and not have what they posted here taken out of context five or ten years down the line. In real life, if this was a real town hall, you can't go back and pretend conversations never happened. Real time conversations happen in the context of a time and a moment. Either reopen the scribble log OR disallow the scribbling of old posts mor than a year old altogether. How else can you be fair to those who posted here in good faith in the past under different rules?
re resp:4: I am not embarrassed by anything I wrote two years ago. I have gotten those two items deleted solely because I think the contents could come to hurt me, and/or hurt my son. Now I want them to stay deleted so nothing bad comes of them now, for either of us. I asked for help in Agora when I entered those items, and I got it. I am extremely grateful for the great kindness that people offered me during that period of my life. I believe the participants in those items saved my life. I am certain they/you helped me to avoid doing things which I would have regretted. Please don't read any lack of gratitude into this proposal. Those items were very important to me two years ago, when I created them and while I was participating in them. I was in miserable shape then. I am better now. I'm in better position to decide whether I want the items around. I don't want them around.
This response has been erased.
If I could be objective about this, I would have to agree that the items should be restored. I am not feeling very objective right now though. I really like jep and I totally understand his reasons for wanting those items deleted. I think if this came up for a membership vote, I would vote to leave them deleted. If they ever are restored, I would not mind it if my posts were purged from the item.
I hope they stay deleted.
jp2 Im not worried about myself, I can go back and scribble my own posts in those items if I want because I'm still here. But what about users who have left and are no longer around? They can't defend themselves from having their comments being newly misinterpreted. If Grex will not change current policy, they should take all old, not-current conferences off the board. Those conferences, like all the old coops and all the old agoras, are there for historical purposes. There comes a point where those confs need not be ever again altered in any way, becuase the users of those conferences most of them are no longer around. Valerie is altering those conferences. She was wrong in what she did because if affected others and not just her. It is like if a person who owns the rights to a documentary film where people are interviewed, and years later they go back and edit the film, take people's comments out of context by removing certain content, and re-releases the film. How is that fair to the people who originally participated in that project for the director, years later and embittered, to go back and make them look bad retroactively even if that wasn't the intent? How can Grex ask people to post here in good faith if staff will not protect the integrity of what they posted once the conference has closed and been archived.
To reiterate/reinforce Jamie's most salient point, I had never heard of the scribble log until very shortly before the proposal to close it. To reiterate my initial point, Richard, your concept of fairness is utterly convoluted and serves desires you obviously have and are ascribing to everyone else possible and it just doesn't hold up. My comment, by the way, was in resp:12 > =========== > #10 of 24 by (richard) on Fri Jan 9 15:35:36 2004: > > ...When people post to grex, they have the right to assume that > anything they post won't be taken out of context... > =========== > =========== > 20 of 24 by (richard) on Fri Jan 9 16:16:26 2004: > > re #17...Other, this isn't a matter of "rights" > ===========
As far as letting me scribble my responses from those items, then re- posting the items... how would the items be restored but kept so only I can see them, until I'm done scribbling? Who is going to go through any responses from others which I request to be deleted, and delete them? If the items are restored, I will certainly begin by removing all of my responses from them. I think I wrote about 2/3 of the responses in those two items. I don't think the discussions will be quite the same after I'm done. The items are deleted now. All I am asking is that they be left deleted. Richard, you've brought up the issue of fairness. Is it "fair" that my son (then age 5, now 7) be subjected to the results of whatever garbage I posted when I was so despondent I was saying anything? Do you think the right of Grex users to plow through old items is so great that he should just have to live with what I posted? Just let the items be deleted. Leave them alone. I'm really sorry for causing problems to other people by this action, but in the case of these two items, I am pretty sure I care more about them than everyone else on Grex combined. I'm asking for a break from Grex. It's completely outside of normal system policy. I'm asking for it to be done that way anyway.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Other, what is convoluted about wanting the words of old users who are no longer around to be protected. If people posted here in good faith, using their names, and they have their words taken out of context years later when they aren't around to defend themselves, how is that fair? Grex is on the web, anybody can go read these old confs. Other, you have no sense of decency if you can't see how some old user's rep could potentially be damaged by old confs getting cut up by an embittered user. Posting here is like if you published something in a newspaper and a magazine. When you do that you can't take it back, because the publications are out there. If I send a letter to the editor of a newspaper and they publish it, I can't go back and ask them to edit the letter out of future microfilm copies of the paper. Grex is publishing what you say, it is sending it out, making it available on the web. Why does Grex not allow editing of posted items? I thought it was the taking other posts "out of context" in the process argument. I think it is unfair to allow scribbling, or editing for that matter, of items that are so old that it is reasonable to think that affected users might not be around to defend or clarify themselves. That Other is called decency. Grex can't grow as a conferencing environment if it does not show that decency, if it does not show that it will protect its past
jep wrote in #21 > I'm in better position to decide whether I > want the items around. I don't want them around. Frankly, jep, I don't think it's any of your business whether the item is around. Ok, well, maybe you feel it's important to you that the item be gone in entirety; I'm not sure why. But you don't have the right to ask that of grex. What you can do is two things: you can scribble all of your responses, and you can ask for help again: ask people sympathetic to you to scribble their responses in that item themselves. I'd be quite willing to do that if you asked nicely; I don't care about anything I may have written in them. (I don't even really remember if I responded, though I know I read them carefully) I think you're going to have to get used to the fact that there are those of us who care enough about what has happened and about doing the right thing about it that we're not just going to let it drop without a fight.
I will vote against this proposal if it comes to a vote. I'll do this not because of my feelings about the overall issue, but because I think that member votes about specific users are a bad idea in general.
If this (jep's) item went to a vote, I would vote no. I think it has to succeed or fail based on the vote for jp2's proposal. If it never comes to a vote, or gets voted down, then jep's proposal is not needed. If jp2's proposal is passed, and someone on staff actually carries it out, I think that jep will just have to deal with it, and work with staff and other posters to scribble stuff individually, sufficiently. richard, we have read your "proposal", rehashed several times. We understand your point of view. We just disagree. It's not going to happen. scribble is scribble, it's what it is, it doesn't know about date ranges, what "oldness" means. Give it up. Forget it.
Re: #12: >>Also, if any posts not made by the users who removed them or
requested their removal are restored, any quotes of a full sentence
or more from the properly removed text should also not be restored,
but should be replaced by something along the lines of:
[quotation removed by request of original owner/poster] <<
I totally disagree (BTW, that text is not part of any proposal, it's just
someone's opinion at this point). Quotations from another item are "hearsay".
Since the original post isn't around, no one need believe the quoter that it
is what was originally said. It has no weight. You will surely argue that
since the original item isn't around, people are just going to assume that
the quote is accurate. That is their problem for assuming that.
(WHAT do we do if both jep's and jp2's initiatives pass?)
re resp:33: Jan Wolter suggested I make this proposal. Without it, it's always possible some staff member might decide to restore my items, or that the Board would order that done. With a member vote, he thought, that wouldn't be a possibility. re resp:32: I understand your misgivings. I have some of that type, too. General system policy should be up to the Board or the users, and specific policy should be up to the staff. I have until now been very comfortable with leaving specific decisions up to whatever staff member happens to make them. This time, though, it's controversial among the staff. I hope the items never get restored, even if this initiative fails. re resp:31: You're writing as if you're very hostile to me, but in the discussion item, you're seeing more and more what I did, why I did it, and I think, why it was reasonable for me to do. I don't want to mess up Grex. I don't want to cause problems. I don't want to be part of a controversy. I want to be reasonable. I want the right thing, too. I dispute that the right thing for maintaining a policy is always the right thing for Grex, the Board, the staff, or an individual Grexer to do. Individual people matter, too. Feelings, concerns, they matter. I ask you to consider that what is good for me, in this case, might be more important that maintaining Grex's immaculate policy.
This response has been erased.
Now that is just so silly, tod. I support jep on this. Leave them deleted.
I'll keep this short: Undelete those items.
This response has been erased.
I think he's within his rights to delete his own comments. Deleting other people's comments crosses the line, though.
restore the items!
Albaugh don't speak for every user on this board. I think Grex's reason for existing is conferencing and you can't expect this place to grow if staff doesn't show its willingness to protect old items from being butchered. Why should people post here if they know that years from now, long after they've left, their words could be still be floating around, taken out of context by other users who have butchered the items they posted in? This goes directly to whether Grex has a future, because if Grex doesn't protect its past than it HAS no future. Don't let the needs of one or two users outweigh the big picture and how it affects the rest of us. JEP, I understand your concerns and I would have had no issue had you deleted those items the week, the month or the year you posted them. But there has to be a time when the item, and the conference are considered closed by Grex, and the staff should then move to preserve everything in those items and confs as they then exist.
Richard, you're just making noise to hear yourself talk. M-net grew up regularly destroying the contents of conferences that were more than a few months old, and FWs on Grex were routinely expected to delete old, inactive items to save space in the early days, when disk was scarce.
krj and look whats happened to mnet. Its not worth crap anymore. You want what happened to mnet to happen to grex? It will unless staff takes care of its history
"butchered", "taken out of context" - what histrionics! How many people have actually said they agreed with you richard. #44 is right on.
Re #45: Hang on. You're arguing that M-Net is in trouble because FWs have
deleted too many inactive conferences? Have you looked at M-Net
ever?
I have no objection to anything I said in the past being taken away, deleted, whatever. I actually thought that old agoras were deleted after a certain time, up until this big controversy.
#46...no #44 is not right on. Albaugh you are not a mind reader and you don't speak for anyone but yourself. So leave it alone.
Wow... it occurred to me that I should come back for long enough to make a proposal for a membership vote on keeping my baby diary deleted, so I logged in to do that, and found that there are at least two such proposals on the table already. A couple of thoughts: At the beginning of Grex, fair witnesses were given very broad powers to do whatever they pleased in their conferences. It was expected that they could delete items and set up their own set of rules for each conference. If you didn't like the way a fw ran a conference, you were supposed to start your own similar conference with a different fair witness, run it your own way, and if it was better than the original conference, then people would hang out there instead of in the original. If that meant that there were 12 cooking conferences, that was cool. I can remember plenty of instances of fair witnesses legitimately deleting items. In the classified ads conference, the fws deleted old ads. In the kitchen conference, the fws (I was one of them) deleted everything and started over, because the conference had gotten big and we wanted it to stay manageably small. In the Enigma conference, John Remmers would change the decor from time to time by deleting old items and adding a "new western look" or whatever style he wanted to try out. Nobody objected. In conversation this evening, Jan said to me that he thinks that the recent discussions about people being allowed to scribble their own responses changed people's ideas of what the role of a fair witness is. I don't know about that -- I sat out from those discussions -- but it could well be true. However, if the definition of what a fair witness can do has changed, I think it is wrong to apply the new rules to old items. My baby diary ran for over six years -- that is, it started long, long, before those recent discussions. Misti says that for sure she would have deleted the baby diaries from the femme conference if I had asked her to. Grace sounds less certain than Misti, but she says that she thinks she would have too. What I'm asking is that if people want a rule that says that fair witnesses can't delete items, don't retroactively apply it to items that the fair witnesses would have legitimately been allowed to delete -- such as my baby diary items or John Perry's deleted items. ---------- Also, I have to say, I thought that the title "Valerie's Baby Diary" made it clear that I owned those items, just like I own the files in my directory and my books in my home. Other people could post to those items, but I viewed them as my own. The title made that clear. I had no idea that people thought that any item in PicoSpan was the collective property of the Grex user community. I'm not sure if this is something that was unwritten and reasonable people made different assumptions, or if it is something that got decided on during the big discussion (that I didn't read) about scribbling items. But to me the idea that if "Valerie's Baby Diary" is in PicoSpan, then it belongs to the community and not to Valerie -- that idea was a surprise to me. The first volume of the baby diary originally had another title, which was changed later, so maybe some case could be made that this does not apply to that volume. But the other five volumes were named "Valerie's (pregnancy/parenting/childbirth/whatever) Diary" from the time when they were entered. If the Grex community decides to make a policy that says that Grex, and not the item author, owns all items, I hope the policy won't be retroactive back to items that were entered before the policy was defined, back when the ownership of items was ambiguous and people came to different interpretations. ---------- Hm... I should post this response in the other proposal item too, since it's much more relevant to that one than to this one.
Interesting. In fact I don't think most confs need fair witnesses at all anymore, except for those like coop and agora that get restarted periodically. The more active a fair witness is, the more a conference becomes a place that seems to exist at the whim of the fw, the more the fw seems to be asserting "ownership" I don't believe a fairwitness owns a conf. I fw several confs and I don't consider that I own any of them. Really the only fw function I do is linking items every so often from other confs. Otherwise I see my role as fw as simply being a cheerleader for the conf. Not to act in place of cfadmin and delete items at users requests or such, I don't think that the fw of the femme conf owns that conf nor that it would be right for that fw to unilaterally decide to remove an item that a lot of people valued, like the "valerie's baby diary item" I think what this whole incident shows is that the role, the concept, the function of a fair witness needs to be re-considered. Particularly in light of new functions and programs. I think you could argue that the only fw commands an fw really needs are those to link, de-link, freeze or thaw an item. I think staff should take away the kill command, only cfadmin or staff need have that. Just my two cents though. Its worth a separate item.............
re50: welcome back, vandal.
The drama and scandal continues. *sigh* Hindsight is apparently 20/20. At the risk of beating a dead horse, again and again, I see that discretion on the Internet should have been a rule of thumb here-- in regards to the big scandals that are raging. I realize John was having some struggles at the time-- again, I'm not sure if seeking advice from an online group might have been better served by a listserv (with an archive locked away from the public if it had one, most people may be thinking of Yahoo! Groups) but he did choose Grex, I guess, because it was convenient, I am guessing. Starting something like I mentioned might have been a hassle-- but then, I think it would have been away from the prying eyes of the public. My gut says to restore the items and let John scribble his responses, although I know that will leave the items looking very awkward and stilted. The more these debates rage on, the more I am thinking that users should consider carefully before posting sensitive information. I will comment on Valerie's situation for a moment-- I suppose weblogs were not a big thing six years ago-- but from what I know now, if I were in her situation, I would put a baby diary there, say to a site like LiveJournal-- and I would lock it to friends only... or more specifically, a certain group of friends. Again, I am guessing maybe these tools weren't around then... but... I think you understand what I mean. I am empathetic to John and Valerie's feelings. It is hard to see sensitive material misused... or to worry that such might be misused. But... I was lampooned too. I'll deal. Sorry, they don't know the real me, I can always change and I can be more careful with what I put out in cyberspace. I'm not real happy with the actions that were taken. Some definite lines *were* crossed, some bad precedents do seem to be forming in my opinion, and it's not the usual bellyachers that are in heated debate over this.
valerie is trying to ruin these two items by posting the same response twice.
Personally, while I'm not all that happy with the scribbling that's gone on, I'm not particularly concerned that a scribbled response will make one of my responses look ridiculous. I haven't gotten that impression in any of the items that have had responses scribbled. I think richard's suggestions to treat old items differently are impractical, unreasonable, and unfair to people who have a lot of old responses. I also wish he wouldn't keep repeating the same argument in every item. We get it, already.
gull, how it is UNFAIR to people who have a lot of old responses to suggest that those responses be protected from being taken out of context? And if you don't want me to keep making the same argument, then stop posting that you disagree with me. You want to drag this out fine. You want to let it be fine. Its up to you.
Wow, that first sentence is quite...the sentence.
Well, we could "protect responses from being taken out of context" by deleting the entire item. (smiley face, OK?) The idea that everything a person says has to be kept on display forever in context to preserve freedom of speech is an interesting. In fact, when the moment has passed, so has most of the context. But getting to the point of this item.... I disagree strongly that this is an inappropriate subject for a member vote. Many people here seem to want their rules simple and absolute. We make a rule, and we stick by it, without even taking into consideration whether certain rare circumstances make the enforcement of the rule pointless or harmful. Grex's system of laws is minimalist. It consists of a very few written rules that weren't really very carefully written, and some unwritten rules that are even more vague. What JEP wants is in violation of a rule that has never been formally written, that at least a few people heavily involved in the system didn't know existed. In the real world, we have a very complete set of very carefully written laws. And you know, they aren't enforced in a totally rigid and absolute way. We routinely find cases where the rules seem to conflict, where different considerations seem to come to bear on the situation. We have a system of courts that can deal with those, where everything that seems to bear on the case can be presented, where the arguments pro and con can be weighed, and where a hopefully consistant and sensible interpretation of how the rules should be applied in different cases can be set forth. Grex lacks any such thing as a court. We have before us a situation that will likely never be exactly repeated. We don't need a policy to say what Grex should do when a particular sort of item is deleted by a rogue staffer. That would be pointless. What we need to do is to decide what to do in this specific case. To make the specific situation, there are two ways it could be done. The board could make it, or the membership could make it. I think the membership is the better choice. That's why I suggested this to JEP. When I did so, I suggested that he keep it very narrow. Just about his two items. Not about Valerie's items. Not about general policy. I thought it would be useful to make a decision on a specific case without having to worry about what we should do in all other vaguely similar cases. That gets the most emotionally charged issue off the table and allows us to consider what our general policy should be in a calmer manner, if any changes in general policy are actually need. The only precident it sets is that it says that when people think that for some reason there general policies of grex are inappropriate in their specific cases for specific reasons, then this can be used as a mechanism to make an exception. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Re resp:56: I think it's unfair to people to tell them that just because of when they came here and started posting stuff, they're not allowed to scribble their responses. I think this is far *more* unfair than the minor risk that someone else's response will look odd out of context.
Re resp:58: But wouldn't a yes vote on this proposal suggest that people supported removing individual items in general? That's one thing that concerns me. If this passes, it lends a lot more legitimacy to the idea of removing whole items in general, whether or not it sets a formal precident.
Items should not be removed. Individuals should be able to scribble their responses. The "context" argument is extremely weak. This is not complicated stuff, people.
This response has been erased.
If this proposal comes to a member vote, it will be phrased as an exception to other rules which might exist. I am asking the users to grant me a special case exemption from the rule (if one exists) that an individual cannot ask for an item to be removed. My reasons for special treatment are stated in resp:1. I am not trying to change or set any policy. This proposal is not a change in policy.
It is the implicit condonment of Valerie's actions that a yes vote on this issue would represent that worries me (as it worries gull). However, in fairness to jep, I think the items can remain retired if the original participants in the threads agree that they would scribble their responses if asked. If there were a few holdouts, their responses could be restored. I think the result would be sufficiently devoid of context so as to asuague jep's fears about what he wrote coming back to bite him.
re resp:64: Retired, as in applying a Picospan "retire" command, Dan? I could do that with any item I've ever entered, including this one, but it doesn't prevent anyone from reading anything by itself. Let's look at what else you're proposing. Obviously, at the very minimum, I will not be leaving any of my responses in those items. (Or I could review all of my responses and exclude the individual ones I don't want, but I don't think I want to do that.) Before the items are to be restored, presumably, someone is going to clean out any responses of any other users who agree to have theirs removed as well. That means all of those people have to be contacted by someone -- before the items are restored, right? -- and given the opportunity to exclude their responses, too. Do they all get to review what they wrote before they decide whether it's to be restored? Who's going to handle all of that? One of the staff, which has already lost two members in the last few weeks? Me? Who? I'd have to ask you to make your proposal a separate proposal, by the way. I'm certainly not proposing anything like what you said.
This response has been erased.
A "yes" vote does NOT condone Valerie's actions. The items should not have been deleted in the way that they were. Now that they have been deleted, though, they should NOT be restored. Approving this proposal may set a precedent, but the precedent will be quickly made moot, but an explicit change in policy. It will not be possible to argue, "He got to, so I should be able to, too," because of all the argument around this issue: It is very clear to any reasonable person (and we don't worry about unreasonable ones) that this *is* an exception, in an exceptional situation.
This response has been erased.
Because restoring them gives them more attention than they deserve.
This response has been erased.
Restore them minus her comments.
Regarding #65; No, not as in the Picospan retire command. I meant retire in the sense that the items (or, rather, the responses) are currently gone. And I think that you should take the responsibility of asking whomever you feel is appropriate for permission to scribble their responses. If jp2 is the only person who wants his comments restored, I'm willing to bet the result will be pretty obscure; certainly so much so that no harm from its existance on grex could befall you or your son. And yes, nothing would be put back in place until all responses which are going to be scribbled are.
Re 67. I agree and also endorse a "yes" vote on this as a means of granting an exception in an exceptional situation.
I agree entirely with responses #61 and #62.
You agree with disingenously complicating argued issues to win?
I posted in these items, I would like my posts restored. I believe I posted in good faith that the only one who would ever remove or alter my words, would be me. I think granting JEP an exception would only show that staff is more concerned with his rights than with the rights of every other user. It won't kill JEP to have to go back and scribble his own posts in those items. It is what he should have done in the first place instead of asking Valerie to delete the items entirely. I would ask that if staff does not restore these items, that they make the original text of the item available by email to all those who participated in the items, so that they may make a decision on their own as to whether to re-post their words, only their words, in another item or another conference. I believe that had proper notice been given that these items were to be deleted, we'd have had the opportunity to copy our posts in those items and save them, or re-post them in a different context.
In fact why not vote that staff restore the items, but agree to give JEP private notice that the restoral has taken place, before the rest of us are told about it, so he has a period of time to go scribble all his posts? How long could it possibly take for JEP to scribble his posts in those items anyway?
This response has been erased.
re 75 The way GreXers complicate issues is quite ingenious, I'd have to say.
Staff happens to have other important things to do besides undelete items or mail copies of them to people.
And yet, they answer your elementary questions in the system problems' item, every day. Figure that.
re resp:77: Why don't you enter a member proposal to that effect, Richard? Then if this one fails, that one might take effect. Maybe that one would take precedence; I don't know. This item is about my proposal, which I am not going to alter in the way that you suggest.
In that case, your proposal will fail. Plain and simple.
An extremely small number of voices have been heard from in this item. I don't think you have any basis for you opinion.
(Lots of people respond in the Systems Problems item. Very few of them are staff members.)
I will be asking the members of Grex to help me, and I think they will respond favorably to a request like that.
See my proposal in #75, #90
re 85 Then clearly they should become staff, since they're doing the staff's job.
What needs to happen to bring this proposal to a vote? I am not familiar with the procedure. Thanks!
item:coop,2 By-laws:
ARTICLE 5: VOTING PROCEDURES
a. Any member of Grex may make a motion by entering it as the
text of a discussion item in a computer conference on Grex
designated for this purpose. The item is then used for
discussion of the motion. All Grex users may participate in
the discussion. No action on the motion is taken for two
weeks. At the end of two weeks, the author may then submit a
final version for a vote by the membership. The vote is
conducted on-line over a period of ten days.
b. A motion will be considered to have passed if more
votes were cast in favor than against, except as provided
for bylaw amendments.
c. For voting purposes, a day will run midnight to midnight. In
the event of continuous system downtime of 24 hours or more,
the voting period will be adjusted to compensate.
Thanks! I grow very weary of this process and of the attacks, the bizarre attempts to circumvent what is going on, and of following the same discussion in 11 different items. I am looking forward to this being over with. I expect to then take a vacation from coop, and possibly even from Grex. No, I won't be mass deleting responses from all of Grex or anything. There is something wrong, though, when it requires this much effort, and discussion, and endurance, to make a simple request. I didn't expect it and wasn't prepared for it, and I resent it.
It works the same for you as for everyone else, jep.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
re resp:92: I have not been through this type of process before on Grex. I haven't been through anything here with this level of attacks. I've been through a similar process, when I was on Arbornet's Board of Directors, but I was elected to that. I knew what I was getting into. If you think it should be normal that a Grex member should go through all of these items, attacks, haranguing, difficulty, etc. as part of sending a request to the staff, well, I disagree. That's what I did, and it's been a lot more difficult and distressing than what I had expected. jp2: You're not worth responding to any more.
jp2's and jep's spat is SAD
All actions have consequences. Some are unintended. Some are undesirable.
Some are tasty.
Re resp:95: When you deliberately get a staff member to do something that most other staff members feel is a violation of policy, I think you can expect it to be controversial.
John -- if you had followed Jan's advice and had the items temporarily removed pending a membership vote, rather than taking his out-of-control wife's help and getting them summarily deleted, you'd have a lot more friends on this issue.
re 95 They didn't start as "attacks". They migrated.
re resp:100: No one suggested to me that the items be temporarily removed pending a member vote, until the items were already removed. *No one* spoke to me at *any* point, other than Valerie, until *after* the items were removed. The Board and staff were carrying on a discussion about my request, in which I was not included, and about which I was not even informed for a day after I sent my request. I heard about that from Valerie as well. Can you go over again what it was I was supposed to do in order to retain goodwill among both the staff and membership? I deny that I went outside of any reasonable expectation anyone could have of "the system". My initial e-mail went to staff@grex.org. So did my next message (after I had received not a *peep* by way of response, from *anyone*). I worked within the system to the very best of my ability. I'm doing so now.
Whups, one baff member had sent me a personal message, discussing personal matters related to my request but with no policy discussion of any kind, before the items were deleted.
You admitted in earlier responses that when you saw what valerie had done, and that she was leaving, you realized you had a limited window in which to get your items removed. To me it sounds like you knew you were taking advantage of a questionable loophole.
My response resp:76 contains all of the e-mails between myself and staff members, discussing the deletion of my items, including all headers. I sent the first one from Grex and then the rest from my account on M-Net. My Grex e-mail is forwarded to M-Net. Most of the e- mails were included to either baff or staff I have omitted the personal message I mentioned as it is of no value in this discussion. All of my contact with the staff of Grex on the matter is included, in both directions. I excluded a couple of lines of comments which would not affect this discussion. An explanation of Valerie's suggestion that I just mass-delete my own responses... she sent it to me at 10:00 p.m. Uncharacteristically for me, I had logged off for the night and gone to bed early. I never got to respond to her suggestion before she deleted my items.
Whups, the e-mail thread is in my response resp:105, which was posted from Backtalk as a "hidden" response. It's a bit lengthy., which is why I posted it as hidden.
Expurgated.
To read from Picospan: 1) Get to the "Respond or pass?" prompt 2) Type "set noforget" 3) Type "only 105"
Re #102: If you want goodwill from those of us who think this was wrong,
allow staff to restore your items, minus your responses.
What Joe said. That or get a legal opinion.
jep, I think if the items were restored minus your responses and minus the responses of anyone else willing to have them removed (which I suspect would be most of the participants), you would find that the remaining posts would be so far out of context that they would be almost meaningless. You could also retire the items at that point which puts the liklihood that someone will accidently stumble on them at nearly zero.
jep, seeing as those items were in old agora conferences (as opposed to Valerie's, which was in the femme cf) I think they'd be a lot harder to find from the average user than Valerie's baby diary items. For instance, a user could easily stumble across the femme cf and browse the items, but wouldn't necessarily go looking under cobwebs to find obscure items such as the ones you deleted. Ergo, you seem to have been a little overly paranoid.
re resp:110: Joe, I don't care to buy Grex's affection, not at that price. If you have to have me act against myself so you can get your way, in order for you to feel good about me, then you'll have to feel bad about me. Second, if the items are restored, there'll be a loss of goodwill from me toward Grex and toward those whom I believe have voted to put them back on-line. re resp:111: There is no reason to involve a lawyer. None. And neither you nor I can afford the bill in any case. re resp:112: I don't see a mechanism for doing it. I don't see how it gets done without the items being public, meaning the responses will never really be deleted. They'll be re-posted by someone. Look through this item and the other ones and tell me I'm wrong about that. If my proposal fails, then if it appears likely the items will be put back on-line, I will press at that time for people to authorize their responses be removed first. The items are deleted now. That's a good thing. It doesn't hurt anyone. *No one had visited those items in a year*. Maybe no one ever would have. I don't know that, but I know they'd be visited now, as the only items ever deleted and then brought back; as objects of curiosity; in order to make attacks against me by people who can't stand me because I asked for them to be deleted. Putting them on-line now is not undoing an action. It's taking a new action which is very hostile toward me. It would be an attack. The items are causing no harm at all now. The only way they won't cause further harm is if they're left alone, just as they are. They're gone. Leave them alone. re resp:113: Uh huh. Every Grexer will know how to get them.
"Every Grexer will know how to get them." re resp:113 It's a possibility... yes. I think that it would be rather sad and pathetic if someone did choose to go searching for the items just to repost them as you said. Time could be spent better elsewhere, in my opinion. I know there is no guarantee that it can't happen. I would believe it would be remote, although in the heat of all this debate it seems more likely in your eyes. I perceive you are only trying to defend and preserve the sanity and well-being of yourself and your family. But as best as I can tell, you went about it in ways that are viewed as unethical by much of this community. Unfortunately, one of the parties involved also did something that much of this community considers unethical as well. Would that your controversies could be separate-- but I don't see that happening with the way things are going. I don't know. I've seen a lot of emotions and opinions sloshed around. What is ultimately decided will redefine Grex in years to come, I'm sure. I will say it until I'm blue in the face... a lot of this does say that folks need to very carefully consider what they put out on the Net... not all places are secure and not all places let you retract your information so easily. Especially if you consider that others might have it stashed somewhere. I'm sure people will still be set in their opinions for quite some time... good luck whatever happens.
Re resp:115: "I think that it would be rather sad and pathetic if someone did choose to go searching for the items just to repost them as you said." If you've been around here for long, you know there are some sad and pathetic people here. Or at least ones that like to make trouble and hurt other people. "What is ultimately decided will redefine Grex in years to come, I'm sure." No, I don't think so. What happens to jep's items is a minor issue to Grex at this point and will be pretty quickly forgotten. I think there's an astounding lack of perspective about that. What's decided as far as Grex's policy towards future deletion requests is what may or may not redefine Grex.
yep, sad and pathetic people. 'twas my point but you know. "What's decided as far as Grex's policy towards future deletion requests is what may or may not redefine Grex." That is what I meant-- sorry if that was unclear. I had thought that was apparent.
Wait, I thought he was primarily worried about his wife finding them... How versed is his wife in the workings of GreXs conferencing system/UNIX?
It was clear to me. Grex has at least three separate things to decide. Actually four if you want to get into the issue of how to police staff and users who abuse the system. Jep says " And neither you nor I can afford the bill in any case" referring to the cost of an attorney to vet his items with his posts reviewed. He also says there is no need for a lawyer which leads me to believe all the breast-beating about liabilities is a red herring. I'm guessing it's something as simple as jep realizing he wasn't comfortable letting his son get a grex account under the old status quo. That's the only explanation that even remotely explains his paranoia if he is to be beleived this isn't about custody concerns. In any case, Grex has paid a very dear cost regardles of jep's real reasons and regardless of whether or not he shares his real reasons for what he did. Given the cost to Grex, though, I think it is highly appropriate that jep pay a cost as well. If he dontates something like $500 to Grex I would accept that as his apology and compensation for the harm he caused. And of course that would in no way be a precedent to allow future item deletions.
<naftee snuck>
Ok, we're apparently on a similar vibe.
This response has been erased.
Millionaire.
Re #119: John didn't delete the items, and he was apparently still deciding
whether he wanted them removed when Valerie made the choice for
him. If you're going to suggest that someone needs to pay money
for them to stay deleted, it should be the person who abused staff
powers and made the actual decision.
Of course, this could quickly get ludicrous. What if I offer
$1500 to have valerie's items restored in full, and an additional
$500/month to have them put at the beginning of every agora.cf
for the next five years?
As I said, I do not want to establish a precedent in terms of paying for a giving outcome that otherwise violates policy. What I am saying is that if the majority of grex is predisposed to make a *one time only* exception, it should make clear that the cost of such extreme action should be shared by jep. Hence my suggestion.
Since there seems to be a lot of anger directed at jep in this item, I want to take a moment to say that while I don't think his actions were appropriate, I don't believe for a moment that he intended to damage Grex with them. It troubles me that some people seem more interested in figuring out how to punish jep than in how to define what our policy on item deletion should be.
I am all for defining policy. I do not see myself as seeking to "punish" jep. YMMV. I do think he should bear a cost that in some way compensates grex for the harm caused.
This response has been erased.
Re resp:127: So what, in dollars, do you feel was the cost to Grex?
I would prefer that jep's items be restored with his posts, my posts, slynne's posts, and the posts of everyone else who asks being deleted before they are restored. Without copies being sent around. That would make me feel good, because we would have tried to "fix" an abuse of staff power and keep Grex closer to how it would have been if this had never happened. HOWEVER I don't believe that this fix would "put the genii back in the bottle" as someone said. I think more harm will be done to the civility of Grex and the tone of discourse by that action, than harm will be done to "free speech" if we -don't" restore them. I think janc is on the right track when he says that we can encapsulate this special circumstance, and still have a clear policy that says it can't be done again in the future.
This response has been erased.
I think this is more like a loophole in a law. You change the law to close the loophole. You don't go back and try to undo everything that happened because of the loophole, and argue that unless you're successful the loophole can't be closed.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
re resp:124: No, I was very directly clear, emphatically so, with more than one e-mail message, that I wanted the items deleted. (See resp:105) Let there be no doubt about it now, either, I want them to remain deleted, just as they are now. re resp:127: I'll cheeerfully pay every penny that can be proven to be lost to Grex because these items were deleted. I'm not going to pay legal expenses if some moron sues, though. If there's a cost to Grex for deleting my items, I'll certainly pay for that. I have no idea what such a cost could be. I'll take aruba's word for it, though. If he says I cost Grex money, I'll make arrangements with him to cover that cost.
Re. 145: but he said LIKE a loophole.
I am reminded of an emotionally abusive tactic I have seen used to control people: invoking the rule "You can't change your mind". From "When I Say No, I Feel Guilty", M. J. Smith, copyright 1975: But if you do change your mind, other people may resist your new choice by manipulation based on any of the childish beliefs we have seen, the most common of which goes something like this: 'You should not change your mind after you have committed yourself. If you change your mind, something is wrong. You should justify your new choince or admit that you were in error. If you are in error, you have shown that you are irresponsible, likely to be wrong again, cause problems. Therefore you are nto capable of making decisions by yourself.' .... To be in touch with reality, to promote our own well-eing and happiness, we have to accept the possibility that changes our minds is healthy and normal." Some of the responses here are harking back to a policy change the membership voted on previously: You do have the right to expurgate and scribble responses in a way that makes them no longer available. Even if you knew at the time that posting on the Internet was "public" you -can- change your mind. And if you responded to an idea in a way that makes you humiliated when the original idea is scribbled, then I suggest you think carefully before you respond in that fashion. And also go back and scribble your own responses that now humiliate you. Grex is a community. We strive to create a community and some of us are very upset when whatever vision of the Grex Community that we hold is challenged. Two deeply held community values are in conflict here: The warm fuzzy belongingness value that we try to create by things like the Saturday Walk and Lunch, and the free-speech-to-the-death value that many of us also espouse. Usually they don't conflict. When someone has healed, matured, or otherwise come to view old thoughts, beliefs and behaviors in a different light, it seems peculiar to say to them "we don't care if you are trying to make amends, we will force you to remain in the time-warp of who you used to be". When two important values are in conflict, it is not necessary to say "We must forever place one of these values in higher priority than the other." We can say, by leaving jep's two items deleted, "Well, we wouldn't have done it that way if we'd thought about it before, and we sure won't ever do it that way again, but the value to being a supportive community suggests the solution of leaving them deleted". Or we can say "The value of my responses being forever readable outweighs jep's needs in this instance, and I insist that my words be put back on public view". In any event this community must decide _in_this_instance_only_ how to handle the situation. Because even a community has the right to change it's mind.
There were two staff members who stated outright that items would be deleted by request of the person who entered them. I don't recall the item number but it's willcome's item in which Valerie's actions were first discussed. These statements were disputed, but they were made. There was definitely reason to believe it could be that way. It was *done* for valerie's items. There was a precedent for deleting items. I acted directly because of those two facts. I never asked for those items to be deleted before last week. You'll just have to take my word for it that I had long wished they could be deleted. I didn't do anything wrong. I've explained in thorough detail my thoughts and all of my actions that led to the items getting deleted. I've provided the e-mails I sent and all of the responses I received. = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - Entirely aside from the actual argument, is the effects of the style being used to counter my request. I am a person to whom Grex is part of the real world. I don't have an extra personality I only use on-line. Grex is part of where I live my life. It hurts me to have people calling me "unethical" and a "vandal" and things like that. I do not deserve any of that. Some of you have known me for 15 years; enough to know my real character flaws (of which I have plenty) and what kind of person I really am. I am not a scam artist. I am not a vandal. I am not unethical. I do the best I can. And you know all that. But your labels may stick with me forever, because they are -- as you intended -- sensational. Look at the responses of jaklumen. He hasn't known me for 15 years, but is just sopping up these labels you cast around so casually. Every time he sees my name, he's going to be thinking, "Oh, that's jep. Someone said he's unethical. And called him a vandal." What principle is it you're following when you do that? I can tell you that. The principle is, "At whatever cost, never lose. Even more than that, never, *ever* retreat, no matter what." This is just the wrong way to go about the discussion.
This response has been erased.
jep, I dont think you have acted unethically here. Nor do I think you are a vandal. I do admit to feeling *very* conflicted about this situation. On the one hand, I like you and I dont want to see you hurt. I dont think those items will hurt you but you clearly do. I respect your desire to have them removed. The folks who say that their words have been deleted and should be restored have a valid point though. Their words should be restored unless they give permission otherwise. I really would hope that all participants in that item would give you permission to delete their posts too. You should know though, that the liklihood of that happening increases if you ask them *before* this vote goes through. Because asking them afterwards has the message "I dont care enough about your feelings about your words to ask your permission to remove them. I am only asking you now because my attempt to force the removal without your permission failed".
"jep the victim" doesn't play for me. I would respect you a lot more if you just said "I want what I want because I want it", and skipped the explanations and rationalizations.
Exactly! He has yet to acknowledge that it was wrong to attempt to retain a personal benefit based on a violation of grex policy. That is why I proposed a "fine." It is a way to save face for all concerned, not compensation for actual harm. It a way for jep to have his way while also admitting it was wrong and caused harm to the core values of grex.
Forcing someone to grovel is hardly a way to solve a problem.
Yeah the $fine stuff is just silly.
Then come up with something else. For all I care he can donate time to do routine system maintenance. Hell, a heartfelt apology in which he takes responsibility for his actions would be a good start. I hardly call that "forcing someone to grovel."
This response has been erased.
That would be too rational and principled for grex.
This response has been erased.
I'm glad my content's intact.
This response has been erased.
Check the logs!
resp:138 Whoa, cowboy, just hold on right there. If you really want to believe that, I'm sorry. Yeah, I don't know you. But is it possible for me to disagree with what how you did things without coming to the conclusion, "oh, gee, he's just buying into everyone's rant that jep is an unethical vandal?" I think it could be. By your same reasoning-- you don't know me-- I don't know why the hell you chose to single me out. I am a father, and I hope I can empathize on some level. If I understand things correctly, you want some control on how you want to discuss things with your son... to not risk the possibility of a lot of unpleasantness just land in his lap. Honestly, I think scribbing out your responses in the item would have been the best way to go. Apparently-- that didn't happen-- we are all dealing with this after the fact. Again, I'm not sure why you see that I am projecting such unfavorable views upon you. Granted, all I know of you is a father who obviously cares about his son (hmmm, there is a possibility that I might have a response or two in your items) and that the material that the items covered was about a very difficult time that you wish to put behind you. You've said that restoring the items jeopardizes that-- that unscrupluous users will repost them to the forefront (do I remember correctly) and that it could be damaging to you, and your son... if he was to find it. I think it was mentioned that your ex-wife *might* get a hold of it if she hadn't already. I can understand all of that, and understand why the material should be gone. Even if, theoretically, the material might have remained and no harm would have been done, you had very good reasons to remove it... and as best I understood, scribbling was the legitimate way to have it done. However, a staff member intervened on your behalf, deleted everything, and hence the controversy. I don't make decisions cast in stone-- I do try to get as much information as possible. To be honest, John, I am sympathetic and empathetic, if you would believe that. But I am also sympathetic to those who are examining the precedent this may cause, and unfortunately, because Valerie was involved and because of the controversy surrounding her own actions, well, I would like to push for a solution that keeps policy on an even keel... because I don't think any of us can tell what might happen in the future. I know this must be terribly emotion-wrenching for you. But I'm not thinking what you're claiming. Much too simplistic. At best, my opinion is that some decisions were made that weren't well thought out... maybe more on Valerie's part. I also see that those decisions will have an impact on Grex policy... and what people decide will determine how things are run in the future. I see two interests very much at seeming conflict-- a father pleading against restoration, arguing such is a foreseeable risk, and a group that argues restoration (with scribbling later) is the way to preserving policy for the future. Not sure how to have the cake and eat it too... but solutions seem to be at an impass for the moment.
re resp:152: Jack, my point in mentioning you is that you're someone who doesn't know me very well, yet in resp:115 you referred to me and said "unethical" about 4 times. I didn't mean to pick on you. I'm sorry, because it's clear to me why you'd take it that way. 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. Once again, I'm not trying to change any policies, and I don't think I *am* changing any policies. I'm asking for a very specific exception. My request is not a referendum on Valerie or on her actions.
you're right, you aren't changing policies. They were temporarily changed for you. That makes you special, but certainly not more correct.
If the item is restored, I would like all of my responses deleted, as well, just in case anyone is keeping track of who's said so or not.
Thanks a lot, Twila, for contributing something actually *useful* to this discussion. You're gonna ruin the whole theme of the thing! ;)
(my $.02: it appears to me that some of the very people who were so helpful to John way back when are some of the same people who want their words restored; I don't know because, although I was aware of the existence of the items, I never read the items much and likely never will. it also seems to me that, in the event that John's items on divorce are restored, even if his responses are removed from said items, it's his name and login credited with entering the items. [as such, he's also the one who could, if the items were restored, go through Backtalk and change the item titles to "Fluffy Grey Bunnies Doing Handstands" or something similarly innocuous.] I've also seen it mentioned that no one's read the items in over a year; I doubt that's true, although it's possible that no one had *responded* to the items in over a year. that's a nitpick on my part, but, as someone who regularly reads old items, it's a nit worth picking.) (I don't know how I would vote on this proposal. I keep trying to apply various paradigms such as "freedom versus virtue" and "free speech versus community" and "compassion versus law," but none of them seem to apply in a way that I would like.)
And as somebody else mentioned, jep can *retire* his items, so they are not even apparent to the average user.
Thank you for mentioning that again. I'm sure it has been missed somewhere.
I suspect part of the reason so much anger is being directed at jep is because valerie is no longer around to take it out on.
In my case, I simply had more invested in jep's item as opposed to valerie's. I also thought jep's item was one of the better ones on grex and generated lots of good comments.
I'll say this, everyone who posted in those items was very, very helpful to me. I appreciated it then and I do now. I regret being at odds with some of you.
resp:153 Read it again, John. I said that the actions taken were considered unethical... namely, the controversy has been actions that led to having the entire items deleted. I have perceived that some folks have believed it unethical, if you will, unfair, restricting free speech. It seems a jump to me to therefore assume that I will therefore associate your name with scandalous accusations. I tried to state things as I saw them, without making any such connection. I'm sorry you don't see it that way, because I'm not out to be your enemy at all or make your life miserable. I feel you are mistaken.
re resp:163: Jack, I think we're close to being on the same page. I understand you don't necessarily think I am unethical. I don't regard you as my enemy, or someone who's trying to make me miserable. (-: I was more using you as an example of someone who doesn't know me very well, but may now be associating my name with such concepts as "unethical" or a "vandal" after seeing the things that people who do know me have said about me. It seemed likely to me you'd think of me that way because one of your responses used the word "unethical" several times. While I can retain hope that *you* won't think that's how I am, I can also expect that *others* will think of me as an unethical vandal because people -- who do know me, and who know better than that -- keep saying that.
I'm baffled by the attempt to blame JEP for all this. The only thing he ever did was express a desire to have those two items removed. He never heard anything about what the board was thinking. He didn't know about the idea of temporarily deleting the item and bringing it up for public discussion (I meant to clear that with him - as it would potentially subject him to some pain and he might have prefered to leave the items quietly forgotten - but I never got around to it, since we never even had board agree to consider that option - some board members opposed it strongly). JEP did not talk Valerie in to this. Valerie felt strongly that it was proper for her items to be deleted. She saw the similarity of circumstances between her and John, and chose to apply her own ethical standards in a uniform way, although in open defiance of Grex's rules. She did not tell anyone, not me, not JEP, that she was planning to do so. It makes no sense to beat JEP for her actions. The only thing JEP ever did was tell people how he felt, not yet a crime on Grex (though it may be on M-Net).
This response has been erased.
This may help you with your baffledness, Jan. Here is mail jep sent to Valerie, staff and board, on January 7th, 4:30 p.m. "Additionally, I feel strongly that, since you were allowed to delete your items, I should be allowed to have mine deleted. You said you acted as two people. User Valerie asked Staffer Valerie to delete the items, and without much ado, it was done. I have now asked the staff of Grex to delete a couple of items for me. User Jep has made the same request, which has clearly reached Staffer Valerie. No debate is needed. Please just delete the items. You can discuss it later. I can justify my second thoughts and request to delete my item quite easily, but I should not need to do so. Just, please, delete the items and do it now." I don't think Valerie would have killed the divorce items had John not demanded it be done. So, he was part of this action, by his own emphatic request. Not that it matters much. This isn't about punishing John. It's about users censoring other users.
This response has been erased.
I don't know if mary betrayed any confidences by posting that. But jep it seems pretty clear to me from that, as I said earlier, that you just wanted what you wanted because you wanted it. I can understand that, even if I wouldn't support granting it to you. So please just cut the crap about it being important stuff, blah-blah-blah-Blah-BLAH!
Jep is certainly no innocent here. As I've mentioned before, at the very least he is attempting to retain a benefit to which he was/is not entitled and it is very unseemly for him to refuse to graciously "return" that undeserved benefit. And in view of #167, I think his claims of innocence are even more suspect.
(oh, for fuck's sake, Mary...) (that was wholly inappropriate. within your rights, maybe, but still inappropriate.)
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Jep already put all of the jep/board/staff email into the public discussion. It's in this item, response #105. He explained in #107 why it's hidden (due to length) but intends it to be read by anyone interested.
re resp:171: I have also said that anyone who received it can post anything I sent to the staff, Board, or valerie, regarding the deletion of my two divorce items. Mary can post whatever she has on the subject, as far as I am concerned, either from me or from anyone else. I am not trying to hide anything. All of the messages I sent or received are posted in resp:105, censored because of length as Mary said, but readable. If you're in Picospan, at the "Respond or Pass?" prompt, type: set noforget then only 105 to see the e-mails I posted. They're complete (except for two small parts of comments which I believe are irrelevant to the discussion), and intended to be read by anyone interested. There was, I am told, much discussion among "baff" in which I was not included. If there's anything there which isn't already in the conference somewhere, by all means, post that, too.
Drift re: this excerpt from a jep e-mail: > the fw of Agora, where my items are, is Katie. > She doesn't log on that often. If true, given that agora is heavily "traveled", are there other people available / willing to fw for agora who grex regularly?
This things one sees, again from what jep posted: Message 1/1 Jan Wolter Jan 9, 2004 01:14:13 am -0500 X-Qmail-Scanner-Mail-From: jan@unixpapa.com via ratbert Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 01:14:13 -0500 To: jep@grex.org Subject: Your Item Are you a Grex member? If so, I suggest that you enter a member proposal in Coop, proposing that your item not be restored. Make the proposal specific to your item, not a general policy. Although that is generic, accurate advice for a wide variety of grex things, I find myself feeling uncomfortable that a grex "pillar" got involved with "furthering / expanding the controversy", or whatever it is. jep was a beneficiary of an act most people consider wholly inappropriate, and was then being advised as to how to hold onto that "ill-gotten" benefit. Dunno...
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
I assume she did it either because it was her duty as a nurse - or human being - or because she was being a busybody. Only the Shadow knows...
This response has been erased.
OTOH, if she did indeed make such reports, the "legal liability" argument some have been making in support of keeping the items deleted is weakened. If there were no repercussions back then, in the heat of the divorce and jep's anger, then I certainly see no risks at this point.
It's not clear whether she did or not. The response in which she apparently admitted to doing so was scribbled. All we have to go by is what jp2 has said.
She acknowledged it.
Where would we be without the 'usual troublemakers' of GreX.
re resp:180: She did? I had never heard that. Mary, is that true?
As I write this, I haven't seen any responses after resp:187. I guess I have to regard it as true. Mary posted some things and then censored them, but some people were able to see what she said. I guess I'll view it that she thought it was her duty; as a nurse, as a citizen, whatever. It's an evaluation of what Mary thinks of me, clearly. I can't blame anyone for doing what they thought right; trying to protect someone's life or well-being; or anything like that. If I thought I was doing that, I'd call the police, too, or do anything else I thought I had to do. On the other hand, when I think of the effects Mary could have had, and from my perspective, *tried* to have, it's pretty chilling. I wasn't even made aware of that until now, and got it 3rd hand. That's, um, not very friendly. I got it by accident at that (Mary didn't intend for me to know about it). All together, I'd have to say it's the most hostile thing anyone has ever done to me except for the divorce itself. I'll have to think about it some more before I decide what it all means. I think it's obvious I'll never be able to post about a real problem again, not under my own name. What else it means, I'll decide that later. Wow.
Re resp:188: Yeah, that's pretty much my reaction, too. I'll think twice before talking about my personal life on Grex, from now on. I'd always kind of assumed that people would have the courtesy not to pass around Grex items to non-Grexers, but in hindsight that seems like a stupid thing to have assumed.
As someone has said several times, "This is a _public_access_ unix system" (emphasis added). Personally, I consider that a far more quelling thought than any "censorship" that has yet been practiced or discussed. But that's just me.
Yeah, and you ARE pretty stupid.
After what I've just read, I am not sure there's anything on Grex for me any more. I am as shocked, and saddened, and disgusted, by information I've received today as I've ever been by anything I've ever seen on-line. I have many other feelings, too. I would have discussed them once, but it's clear to me now that I can't do that here, not any more. I guess I'll try to see this proposal through. It's what I'm logged on for right now, and that's pretty much all I'm logged on for. After that, after it's voted on, I don't know. The bad eggs... you just don't know who all of them are.
Please enter the mail I sent you, Jep.
You could post it yourself.
Nope. Instead I'll do what I should have done in the first place - make my point by using a fictional example. The example: One morning we log on, coffee in hand, to find one of our regular users, an old friend to many, reports he's depressed and can't seem to find a reason for living.. He details fantasies about how he could kill himself. You know, from his comments, that his family has no clue of his suicidal thoughts. If I cared what happened here, and was worried he was a credible threat to himself, I'd probably ask someone who could read such behavior better than I, for advice, if I knew doing so would be casual and off the record. So I show the expert the item, without additional information or identifying information. The advice comes back that it's scary stuff, to be sure, and, "A really hard call", but it could be benign venting. So I ponder what to do and decide to wait it out a bit longer. But I'm watching and ready to intervene if the threats persist. But low and behold, time and professional help, and community support seems to be be helping enough that the threats slow and cease. In the end pointing his family to the discussion wasn't necessary and I'm relieved to not be involved. But it was a gamble. If I'd decided to let the family know of his suicidal statements, would that have been wrong? I'm still not sure. When someone makes such provocative statements it's usually a call for help. Usually. But how much help is appropriate when the threats are made in a public forum where we encourage people to tell all? Would going to the family have been the right thing to do no matter how clear it was he was in deep trouble? To be honest, in the situation I faced, I decided to do nothing. Some of my inaction was due to the fact I didn't have to intervene, legally. Had this been a child, yes, the law requires a nurse to inform the parent. But I can simply watch when it's an adult and I'm off duty. That sounds so cold, but it's true. So this is a powerful thing we've got going. We encourage anyone to share their most personal problems, but on a public access system, where items live forever, and all that help you got will live on and on, helping others whether you want it there or not. Is it any wonder that every once in a while we get confused about the priorities? Which is it? Open access? No censorship? Control of private information? That's what we have to find out.
resp:190 et al... such is the reality... although there may be a sense of community and some trust, we see information shared here is still fairly open and vulnerable. It's not secure and it can be exploited.
Mary has accomplished making my "ignore" list, which has one occupant now. I've asked her not to e-mail me. I'm not interested in discussing her any more. Let's stick to something relevant; the deletion of my two divorce items.
Re #195: Thanks Mary. I had similar concerns myself, although I did not act on them other than to post more in the items. And I think having a professional double-check your concerns is often a good thing to do in many areas of life.
I think mary has a valid point. When you post to a public access system like Grex about your problems, would you not want and even hope that others can also benefit from the advice you are soliciting? JEP is not the only person on this board who has gone through a painful divorce or separation from a loved one. Yet he doesn't seem to understand that the possibility existed that his items might have meant something to other people, that others might have been personally benefitting from the discussion. I have stated in one way or another many times my belief that on grex, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Grex should exist for the betterment of the community. If one enters an item here, it should be with the idea that it will be to the benefit of everyone, or as many people as possible, and not just to the person posting. I would argue that JEP could have done a mass email to a bunch of people if his intent was purely to seek personal advice and not to open a discussion that belonged to anyone and everyone who read it. I think there has to be the sense that the discussions and conferences, and the posts within those conferences on Grex, belong to everyone. Otherwise you create the inevitable impression that grex is just a collection of individuals posting for their personal benefit, and not a group of users who come here because they want to be part of a community and want to be part of such a shared experience.
And I'd also say that I was disturbed by what Valerie did for similar reasons, because by doing so, Valerie seemed to show that all along she was only interested in the community she helped build so long as she was a part of it. Here in Brooklyn, we have what are called "community gardens", big gardens that everyone on a given block or neighborhood shares and works on. This is because many of us don't have individual yards. So people on my block for instance all contribute to the community garden at the end of the street. Its a nice garden and people plant things there and water the garden and it is owned by everyone and helps beautify the neighborhood. What Valerie did to Grex is akin to what would happen if I left my community garden, and decided that since I don't want to work on it anymore, I'm going to go down there and rip out all the plants I personally put in and undo any landscaping or anything else I did over the years there. Would it be fair to the other neighbors? No. I mean I guess I can say these plants in this corner are mine and .etc, and assert my right to take them out, but why would I want to mess up a nice garden that I put time in to developing? In a case like that, even if I decided I hated my neighbors, I'd think that the collective enterprise that is that garden should outweigh my personal gripes with anybody. Think of Grex like such a garden. Something that is alive and growing, and should be allowed to own itself as much as possible. Why do we always have to retain ownership of everything we put into a project?
How about if you saw that someone was defacing the garden, Richard? Wouldn't you pull out your plants before they were destroyed, too?
What valerie did to GreX is akin to bombing the whole freakin' garden.
Re #201: Don't you mean "how about if you heard someone from another block
making fun of your garden"? That's a better analogy.
This response has been erased.
haha, it's the right analogy.
<donning voteadm hat...> I've posted a summary of the rules regarding voting in item 75, response 179 (resp:75,179). The earliest voting could begin, should John elect to bring it to a vote, is January 23.
Thanks remmers!
jep, if you feel you have to ignore mary and refuse to read and consider the actions she describes in resp:195 as those of a reasonable and caring friend who is bound by both professional and legal responsibility, then you are letting an out-of-control emotional reaction rob you of both your reason and a valuable friend, and the only response I can muster to that is to pity you. I seriously hope you will step back a bit and consider this a little more objectively.
As far as I am concerned, the discussion between Mary and myself is closed. I have no interest in continuing it with her. I have no intention of discussing it with anyone else, either. This is not the appropriate place to do so in any case. I suggest two things to you: 1) take it to e-mail 2) please leave me out of it Thank you.
This response has been erased.
I've said my piece.
And you said it very well. I share your views.
I'm not convinced that mary had any 'professional and legal responsibility' to do what she did. I accept that she felt she had a moral responsibility to do so, though. I think it's regrettable that she didn't also feel she had a responsibility to express her concerns to jep before going over his head. If I were him, I'd be pretty annoyed with her, too.
I'm curious why she didn't express such concerns with jep.
I believe Mary did express just such concerns to jep. Of course with the item now deleted no one can say for sure. However, I seem to recall several posts of hers stating words to the effect of "jep, what you are writing sounds like threats and you should be aware that experience teaches that such words must be taken seriously in the context in which you have used them." Jep also admitted to stalking behavior, let's not forget. I *know* I warned jep (using a pseudo) when I said his words were chillingly similar to those of a domestic violence assailant. I also warned him about the stalking type behavior. If Mary did make a formal report to the police, then in my opinion she went too far, although I am not going to hold that against her. For all any of us know she has personal knowledge of domestic violence and felt a line was crossed. I certainly can't fault her for informally consulting with an expert to get a second opinion.
But I did express my concerns to jep. Multiple times. Participating in the conferences with an expectation of privacy is a topic ripe for discussion. That was my intent with #195. But what probably shouldn't happen is dragging specifics about John's divorce into that conversation. That's unnecessary.
cyklone slipped in without my permission. ;-)
Yeah, I remember mary warning jep in those items too. She found his behavior much more scary than I did but I have to admit that if I actually thought he was a threat to someone, I would have gone to someone with the item. FWIW, I have made hard copies of items in the past and then shown them to people for various reasons. Usually because someone wrote something very interesting or expressed a point well.
This response has been erased.
I have printed out items too. Don't remember why.
Sure, tod. Read respone #195 in this item. Then tell me what you think would be the best response in that scenario. But the given is that you are pretty sure the person is so out of control that he could harm himself. Do you tell his partner or parents? Do you ask for advice from someone who can read such threats better than you can? Are you supportive in the item and cross your fingers that is enough? Do you just read the item and do nothing? Would it make any difference if the person talking suicide is a minor? What if the behavior being discussed is instead child abuse? What's the expectation of this community when a discussion discloses a potentially life threatening danger?
This response has been erased.
mary's a nurse? I thought she was retired...
You get to set the threshold for your criteria. The assumption is *you* see the person as dangerous to himself or others. Now what? It's a hard place to be. From your question it almost seems like you are looking to be sure that the risk is genuine. And that is exactly why I'd be seeking a second opinion before doing anything dramatic. Being supportive and seeking more information happens concurrently. John won't let me retire. ;-)
This response has been erased.
A guy I used to know once had someone call a suicide hotline on his behalf. Man, was he ticked off. It took him hours to get the hospital to release him. I don't know if he was billed for the privilage, as well.
This response has been erased.
Listen, you don't know what it's like to be a cop. It's a high-pressure job, and we made a mistake that time.
This response has been erased.
Re #226: That doesn't necessarily mean it was a bad thing to do.
Re: #225 You don't run off to Dr. Phil because you're not at all convinced the person is at risk. Again, just this one time, tell me what you'd do if *you* thought he was in bad enough shape he could kill himself. What I'm suspect is maybe all you'd be comfortable doing is supporting the person online. That's a legitimate answer. But if it is your answer is it because you'd be uncomfortable seeking help or because you feel Grex's unwritten privacy code would be violated?
If something someone said online led me to believe they were suicidal, then knowing what I do (which admitedly isn't that much) about how much human communication is distorted in a medium like this, I'd go over to the person in question's house and talk to them to see if my fears were justified. Mary, shame on you. You ought to know better than to presume that what you read on a computer screen is going to be a sufficient for you to make a good determination of a person's state of mind. You engaged in an action that could have had serious consequences for JEP and his son without first doing sufficient due diligence to see if your fears were well-founded. Don't Nurses have to take some equivalent of the Hypocratic Oath? ``First, do no harm.'' In this case, your actions don't appear to have affected the outcome of events. I think that's luck. What you did had potential to do real harm, and you don't seem to understand that.
And you are making assumptions about what I did that are inaccurate. But don't let that temper your judgement. ;-)
Mary's actions are irrelevant to this item, which is a policy discussion in coop of whether to direct the staff to leave my items deleted. My state of mind from two years ago isn't very relevant, either.
This response has been erased.
I'd say it shows his concerns are very real, if belated.
Hence his reference to the red herring, I suspect. If jep was not harmed by Mary's actions, it seems far-fetched for anyone to assume that restoration at this point could cause any harm.
That Mary's (limited) actions had no ill effect is NOT proof that someone else's actions would be similarly harmless. Right now, the possibility for such action is limited. Restoring the items restores the possibility for adverse action. In my opinion, the current controversy increases the likelihood of such adverse action.
This response has been erased.
Re #238: Please identify some *rational* basis for your belief that an adverse action could occur. Remember, the issue should be weighing the potential harm to jep v. the *established* harm to grex's professed values of free and uncensored speech (with the resultant harm of denying access to someone else in the future who may need such an item much as jep himself said he wished such an item already existed). "Awfulizing" is a form of distorted thinking and not a good basis for rational decision-making. Speculation that has *some* basis in reality is OK, so please share some details. So far though, you have simply made a hollow statement empty of any real meaning. Here's another hint: Jep himself stated his request to keep the items deleted was *not* based on legal concerns.
Cyklone, please illustrate the harm that will be done to Grex's "professed values" by not restoring those two items from backup media. While you keep throwing out the phrase, "free and uncensored speech", you haven't established in any way that this action limits that. Those two items aren't going to be left intact and available to future users. That's not a possibility. Even if you are granted what you want, most of the responses aren't going to be there. I, and at least several others, will have our responses removed. What future readers would be left with, at the very most, is a few scattered comments which used to be part of a discussion. You're completely free to post a new item, and to create something which would be useful to anyone else who happens upon it while stressed out over a divorce. If your concern is helping others, as you keep stating, that could be a good way to do it. It would be a lot more productive use of energy than the politicking you're doing in the discussions over the deleted items. It is even possible I would help with such an item. As I've said before, I was helped a lot by people responding in those items. I can't be as open and personal now as I was before because of other factors, but I would be willing to give back if I ever can. What's happening instead is something entirely different, and in no way productive. No new divorcee is going to be helped by reading the pitted remains of my divorce items. No censorship is being fended off. No one was ever censored. No one was denied any right to speak out (and be heard/read by others), and no one is going to be denied that now. Opposing this proposal isn't doing any good. None. At all. And won't, whether you succeed or whether I do.
This response has been erased.
Ahaha, "no censorship is being fended off". Boy, you sure love to obfuscate and distort facts, don't you?
Yeah, that self-serving logic is laughable. Just because someone is free to speak out later does not negate the existence of censorship when a person's previous words are no longer available. Of course, if jep believes this logic, then I suggest he authorize staff to provide me access to all the dbunker posts. Put your money where your mouth is. I *will* use those posts to start a new item if jep's proposal passes. I am hereby requesting a grex member in good standing make a proposal to permit all posters to jep's item be given a chance to retrieve their text. This includes those of us who's pseudos have been reaped. There is also an insidious argument being circulated in a very underhanded way. It is the "most of the responses aren't going to be there. I, and at least several others, would be left with, at the very most, is a few scattered comments which used to be part of a discussion." I anticipated this little argument about two weeks ago. The "hidden agenda" here is to play the "poor me" card and get enough people to agree to delete their posts. That means now jep can argue that the item itself has lost its value. Apparently he believes this justifies censorship on the groungs that what is being censored has little present value. Of course I think Ku Klux Klan literature has little value, yet should not be censored. While this should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of principles and intelligence, I see jep's "logic" as yet another means for the feel-good crowd to do a personal favor for a favored person. The intellectual dishonesty displayed by jep and his supporters is stunning and disgraceful.
Nice words, but not at all convincing, cyklone. I've been convinced that Valerie's action in removing the items was wrong. I have NOT been convinced that that removal is "censorhsip," nor have I been convinced that it did violence to grex's principles of free speech. As I remember the item, the divorce and custody battle were quite acrimonious. It seems to me quite likely that the evidence there of stalking could be used in a future custody battle. The general tone of the item could easily be used to call in to question jep's fitness as a parent. I'm somewhat surprised that it was not used in such a fashion, especially since jep's former wife had been using grex. (I stumbled across a response from her in the music conference, in an item that came to my attention because one of Valerie's responses had been removed.) That it was not used before is no indication that it wouldn't be in future. As I said before, I think the acrimony surrounding _this_ debate has made it even more likely that the item will be delivered to someone who _could_ (and *would*) make use of it, to jep's detriment. You wish to consider this "hypothetical." That's fine; your privilege. Just as it is my privilege to consider your claims of "censorship" and "violence to grex's principles of free speech" to be hyperbole.
Wait, you don't want to restore the items because you WANT to help jep -- a stalker -- skirt the law?
Re #246: Unless you are a family law attorney, I consider your opinion speculation. I have offered to contribute money to jep to get a legal opinion. *HE* said his concerns were not legal. So you are stretching to justify what you want to do rather than come up with any principled justification or reasoning. Hell, I'll kick in fifty bucks for *you* to get a legal opinion. I'm putting my money where my mouth is. How about you? If you can't see how removing posts of people who posted on Grex believing they had sole control over their posts is censorship then you are ignorant as well as unprincipled.
This response has been erased.
The divorce system does not follow the legal rules, or at least that was the case 20 years ago. Friend of the Court does what it feels like and tends to favor the mother. In Jim's case he was paying child support to someone earning twice what he was (because he had worked while she went to school) while taking care of the kids half the time, on her schedule.
Re resp:240: I think you're doing a lot of "awfulizing" yourself. Any damage to Grex's values is already done, and restoring the item won't reverse it. It won't undo all the debate that's occurred over the last few weeks. It's not going to do anything except satisfy some people who want to see jep punished. Resp:242 is revealing; if you read between the lines, it says that valerie was the problem...but since she's no longer here, we're supposed to take this out on jep instead. I originally wasn't going to vote for this proposal, but I've been so disgusted with the amount of abuse directed at jep over the last couple of weeks that I'm starting to reconsider.
This response has been erased.
There is no guarantee that any items will remain on grex forever. However, usually items are removed with notice. That didnt happen in this case because of a staff member intentionally deleting this item. I agree that the items should not have been removed without notice. However, I cant buy cyklone's argument that we shouldnt remove the items because of some potential future benefit to someone. If those items are restored, they will be essentially useless since the majority of posts will have been removed. The only reason I can see for the items to be restored is that people's posts were removed without notice. I think that as a system policy, that should be frowned upon. But, I also think it should be ok to make exceptions to the rules. Luckily grex has a method (member votes) to do this. Yes, if this passes, it would be a situation where a favored user has been granted special treatment. FWIW, I havent yet decided how I am going to vote on this. I dont think any great harm will come to jep if the items are restored since most people (myself included) will be deleting our comments anyway which will leave the items pretty bare. I also dont think it will ruin grex to leave them deleted. They were good items, sure. But there is no way that they will be restored in any usuable way. For me, I guess it all boils down to if I consider it more important to protect every users words no matter who they are or to allow someone I like to use proper channels to make an exception to the rules.
I still don't have any clue as to how Grex will be damaged if those two items are not restored. I assert there won't be much effect on anyone but me as a result of this proposal passing. This is a simple and straightforward request on my part.
This response has been erased.
My proposal should be phrased in this way, if this meets the policy requirements of Grex: --- Shall the staff be directed to leave these two items as permanently deleted? The two items were entered by John Perry (jep) to discuss his divorce, and were deleted on January 8 in response to his request to the staff. The items were: agora40, item 63 (Winter 2001-2002) agora41, item 11 (Spring 2002)
This response has been erased.
(I don't have time to talk to a lawyer before responding to other parts of the responses to my comments. As soon as I can, I'll report back as much of the conversation as I am allowed.) Evidence Tampering: destroying records that have not been requested is not a crime, last I heard. We are always free to destroy our own coments, and jep's are the only ones that really provide any 'evidence' of wrong-doing. Censorship: Is an emotional term. It is being used for its emotional value, not for its description of what happened. Words were removed, without regard to what they were or who said them, but simply because of where they were said. That is not censorship by any definition I know. People don't like that they were removed, so they cry "Censorship!" The claim does not make it censorship. Free Speech: Words were written. These words had their desired effect, or as much of it as possible, at the time. That's free speech. Removing the words later does not diminish their original, and intended, effect. The real question is, who owns the item? The person who entered it, or the people who responded to it? Who owns the responses to the item? Is it absolute ownership, on the part of the responder, or is it shared ownership, between the responder and the item-author, who gave the responder something to respond to? If shared ownership, is the persmission/desire of both owners required to continue "publication" (for lack of a better word)? Or is one owner's desire to make the shared work disappear sufficient? Lots of people have said that the item-author owns the item text and the individual responders own their responses. I've not really seen any reasons to accept that view, except "People expected their words to be preserved." My counter is that "People expected their words to be preserved _in context_." If (or when) the context disappears, their words should disappear as well.
> My counter is that "People expected their words to be preserved _in context_." If (or when) the context disappears, their words should disappear as well. < Sorry, I don't buy that one bit. It is true that without the prior reponses, some / many responses become nonsensicle. But that is not a reason to delete them, a justification. So let's not go there. As for the "censorship" notion, I certainly do not believe that valerie deleted items for the express purpose of censoring others' words. The net effect of that action may be seen as "censorship", until/unless the items are restored and individual posters are allowed to decide for themselves.
This response has been erased.
Re #257: "Evidence Tampering: destroying records that have not been requested is not a crime, last I heard. We are always free to destroy our own coments, and jep's are the only ones that really provide any 'evidence' of wrong-doing." Great. So now you ADMIT that removing jep's words removes the harm to him. In that case, what is your basis for deleting the words of others? My dictionary defines censorship as the act of removing things that are objectionable. Jep apparently feels that at least some of the posts in his item were objectionable, on the grounds his son might become aware of them. Care to try again? "Free Speech: Words were written. These words had their desired effect, or as much of it as possible, at the time. That's free speech. Removing the words later does not diminish their original, and intended, effect." Now you are really stretching. Words only have effect for as long as they are there to be seen and heard. No one posted with any intent of an expiration date being applied. I intended my words to have an effect for all who read them, WHENEVER THEY READ THEM. Deleting them prevents this and my words *are* diminished. Your argument about who owns the words is utterly specious. Point me to a single written policy or even a staff decision that implies a person on grex does not "own" his words. Your failure to do so will show your argument has no merit whatsoever. Indeed, the vote to allow permanent scribbling shows a recent affirmation by grex to allow the poster ultimate control over his or her words. To those who think I am "awfulizing" by saying deletions undermine grex's professed dedication to free and uncensored speech, I would simply note the obvious: when you are perceived as hypocrites who toss away your professed values to do personal favors for favored persons, then your reputation is damaged. What I am picking up from some posters is that you care more about your "feel-good" reputation rather than any principled commitment to free and uncensored speech and having a reputation for supporting same. Fine, ya'll have to live with yourselves. Just don't presnt a different face to the ACLU next time it needs a plaintiff. Finally, the argument that restoration is not "feasible" if many people delete their posts volunatorily begs a number of questions. How do you know this? Does your crystal ball tell you that Joe Divorce Candidate will come looking for the item jep wished was here at the beginning of his divorce and will get NOTHING AT ALL out of what remains? Do you even know for sure what will remain? The theory of the marketplace of ideas suggests that indviduals must decide for themselves what words have value and which do not. Yet you now claim to make that decision for people you don't know and haven't even met. How very paternalistic of you. BTW, that attitude backs you right into proving my claim of censorship, since you are now deciding that "Item A minus X% of content" is not worthy of disemmination. You are now appointing yourselves de facto editors and making decisions on content that others should be free to make themselves by reading or not reading what posts remain. How very Big Brotherish of you.
My argument on ownership is NOT based on past practice or policy. It is not a justification for the removal of the items. My argument on ownership is an argument for taking a specific action NOW: _not_ restoring jep's items. It is also an argument for not restoring Valerie's items. I argued in favour of closing the 'scribble' log because I believe that individuals have the right to stop 'publishing' their words. That does not mean that others do not have a similar right over those words. I argue that the only additional person who has that right is the person who entered the item. In the course of our lives, we often discover that our expectations were mistaken. That doesn't mean that the world will change to meet our expectations. Instead, our expectatins change to match the world.
Re resp:260: "Just don't presnt a different face to the ACLU next time it needs a plaintiff." Poor choice of argument, in this case, for two reasons: - jep strongly opposed Grex's involvement in the ACLU case. Making an argument based on whether Grex would be useful to them in the future is unlikely to fly with him. - The ACLU has never particularly cared how honorable the people they defend are. The extreme example of this is a case in Florida where the ACLU is trying to protect Rush Limbaugh's medical records. Rush hates the ACLU and everything they stand for but they're defending him anyway.
This response has been erased.
Re #261: And such a nice little fantasy world you've created. Just don't pretend it has anything to do with free and uncensored speech. Re #262: Jep's feelings about the ACLU are irrelevant to the issue of whether or not grex's actual values are consistent with those of the ACLU. Put a little differently, the ACLU would support jep's rights to free and uncensored speech even if he was himself advocating censorship. The ACLU would not support him (or, more precisely, Valerie) in actually censoring others. Your "argument" is absurd on its face. Claiming, as gelinas does, that the creator of an item becomes a co-owner of the words of another, with a "trump veto" over the words of another, is equally twisted and unsupportable. Just admit it: some of ya'll are grasping at straws to do a personal favor for a favored grexer and cannot bear to admit that in doing so you violate the whole notion of free and uncensored speech. Agora my ass.
This response has been erased.
The "trump veto" is only available by removing _all_ of the item, not just the words of one other user. The item author cannot say, "gelinas cannot participate in my item" nor "gelinas' response X must be removed." I really won't mind if my argument does not prevail, cyklone. I think it *should*, but I understand that others don't. And we simply disagree on the ownership of items. This disagreement does not mean that one of us is more supportive "free speech" or more against "censorship." We _may_ have different ideas of what those terms mean, though.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
resp:249 I found the key word was "tend to"-- Friend of the Court also tends to favor the parent who earns more money-- else a friend of mine would easily have custody of her kids. (She's rather poor)
No, it might be clear from Picospan that in Marcus' opinion the item author is not the owner, but that is as far as the evidence will take you. No, the item author has no right to republish your words. The limit of their rights in your words is to remove the item they enter. If you decide to republish your words in a different item, the original item author has no rights in them, except in the item he created.
Methinks that cyklone protests way too much. I think he's trying very hard to make this discussion all about free speech and censorship because he feels guilty about his role in hurting Valerie enough that she wanted to leave. He can't face up to his guilt, so he makes out like he's fighting the righteous good fight.
LOL! Is that you polyboy? FWIW, I feel no guilt or responsibility for valeries "hurt" or for her abuse of grex.
Re #266: So by your logic a "trump veto" over one person is not OK but a trump veto over everyone is. What an interesting planet you inhabit. Please try again with earth logic. It is fundamental abuse of the system to allow anyone to have a trump over the words of one person. It is even more offensive to have a trump over an entire group of people for the very simple reason that you are multiplying an abuse of one into an abuse of many.
When you actually have something logical to say, please say it. So far, it has been emotional polemic.
Yeah, cyklone is an emotional bad-boy. He is presenting raw facts and refuting arguments, causing GreXers to get emotionally mad. I say we emotionally smack-down his account.
Actually, he is not presenting "raw facts"; he issimply making claims, with no support.
What would you know about raw facts?
Re #276: It seems to me that you are the one who has failed to support your claims. Tell me where I have failed to support mine.
Neither of us have been very good about backing up our claims. So:
Words have meaning only in context.
The context for a response is provided by the item author.
When the context is removed, the response should also be removed.
The item author is free to remove the context at any time.
Therefore, the item author should remove any responses at the same
time that he removes the item.
"Words have meaning only in context."
This is why "out of context quotes" are generally condemned in
news reports, scholarly articles and informal discourse.
The occasional "out of context quotes" item in agora exemplifies
the necessity of context for meaning.
The many uses of "Good day" or "Good morning", as shown in the
opening chapter of _The Hobbit_, are dependent upon
context.
"The context for a response is provided by the item author."
The item text establishes the basis for discussion.
The item itself provides the place for discussion.
"When the context is removed, the response should also be removed."
Follows from the warped meaning of out-of-context quotes.
"The item author is free to remove the context at any time."
Well established by past practice: item authors can "scribble"
the text of the item, and several have done so.
Thus, to prevent the deliberation distortion of other's meaning, any
responses should be removed when the item text is removed.
This response has been erased.
You think deliberately warping the meaning is acceptable? Or you disagree that removing the context warps the meaning?
This response has been erased.
So you disagree with the conclusion but cannnot refute it.
This response has been erased.
Yeah response 282 shows clearly that the users should not be allowed to arbitrarily delete content of other users, within reasonable bounds, of course.
Gelinas is also making a huge intellectual blunder in assuming all words
in a given item require context to be understood. I do not accept such a
faulty premise. I can guarantee that certain posts in jep's items stand on
their own, and are full of meaning that do not require anything beyond the
ability to read the actual post. I would also submit that even where
context would make certain words more" meaningful", they may still contain
meaning in the absence of context.
The premise that the context for a given post is dependant on the item's
author is absolutely absurd. In many cases, the only context required is
that provided by the post immediately preceding.
"Words have meaning only in context."
This is why "out of context quotes" are generally condemned in
news reports, scholarly articles and informal discourse.
Out of context quotes are condemned by those quoted out of context. The
issue regarding restoring posts does not implicate that concern. Whoever
is willing to allow their posts to remain implicitly accepts the resulting
context or lack thereof. To argue otherwise is intellectually dishonest
and/or evidence of a seriously feeble mind. Gelinas, you can't seriously
be saying *OTHER PEOPLE* beside the poster should be entitled to make
"out-of-context" complaints are you? If so, that again sets up the issue
of a user who wishes his/her words to remain regardless of context and a
group of voters saying "we think these words are sufficiently out of
context that no one else should be permitted to read them." Guess what?
THAT IS CENSORSHIP, PURE AND SIMPLE! Get a fucking clue, dude.
I won't even talk about deconstructionist viewpoints right now. We need
leland to join this item, as I am sure he would spot even more flaws in
gelinas' "logic."
Except for the use of emotion-laden terms, which are the tools of demogogues, you actually have some good points, cyklone. Nice job. This disagreement is NOT an example of "feeble-mindedness" or "not having a clue." There are real issues here, with real effects. Stop screaming so much and start thinking a little more, eh? Oh, jp2, #282 boils down to, "It's Just Wrong!" #282 contains no counter-arguments.
Sometimes screaming and hand-waving is the only way to get people to think. We really do need leland here. You're right, gelinas, response 282 delivers its message loud and clear. Which, I'm guessing, it was meant to do.
Point me to a post where I *haven't* been thinking. I'm "screaming" because the censorship is so obvious I cannot believe grex's collective IQ (which I previously had thought to be fairly high) fails to see it. That leaves at least two possibilities: The collective IQ is no where near as high as I originally thought (ie. a bunch of feebs are pulling the numbers way down) or the feel-gooders have no rational way to prevail except to obfuscate and/or rely on emotion rather than logic. Pointing out that I am sprinkling my rational arguments with a few insults hardly makes your argument rational and mine emotional. I am more than willing to argue rationally. No one in suppoprt of jep's proposal seem willing to do so, however. The reason is that no rational arguments can be made that do not ultimately support censorship. Some of you are trying to do a personal favor for a favored person without admitting to yourselves and to grex that in so doing you are inevitably and unavoidably striking a blow against free and uncensored speech.
<naftee snuck>
I would be arguing the same way no matter who had made the original proposal. So I'm not going to take your "some of you" personally. :) Claiming it is censorship does not make it censorship. I disagree that it *is* censorship. Please present, without insults, your thoughts on what makes it censorship. If you cannot, perhaps you should spend some thinking instead of writing.
Perhaps you should check my previous posts or read a dictionary that states censorship is barring objectionable statements. You claim that it is OK to remove the words of others because you object to the lack of context that would result from partial scribbling. Is that clear enough?
Better. However, I do not find the words themselves objectionable. So your claim of "censorship" does not apply. Nor do I really object to the lack of context. I do think that, as a whole, we would be better off with items removed all at once rather than little by little. It's more an aesthetic thing than anything else: it's cleaner and results in less confusion: it's all there, or it's all not. In the disccusion of closing the 'censor log, I argued that the removal of a response that leaves another response context-less is something for the responder to deal with. I see the removal of a response as different from the removal of an item.
On what basis are you making that distinction? It seems to me to be a distinction without a difference. And for someone who doesn't "really object to the lack of context" you certainly made a big deal of it in #279. BTW, opposing something on the grounds of aesthetics is just another form of censorship. You are confusing the specific form of content-based censorship with the larger set of censorship for *all* objectionable reasons. That you seek to bar restoration because you find the aesthetics objectionable in no way minimizes the fact that what you propose *is* still censorship. Even more to the point, how can you seriously advocate a right to remove someone's words on aesthetic grounds? Grex is full of inartfully written material that offends my sense of aesthetics. What you are suggesting leads to an absurd result. And since people already have right to remove their posts, your "all or nothing" argument is unsupported by existing policy. I can just see the next proposal in which one of the polyboys proposes a vote to remove all of klg's items on the grounds his use of the royal "we" offends their sense of aesthetics. In the end, you have no real justification for denying posters the right to post and then control what happens to those posts. By posting your long diatribe about context, and then denying it is really important to you, followed by your new aesthetics angle, you are simply confirming my previous assertions that some grexers will do anything to justify doing a personal favor for a favored person.
I really can't believe the attitude that staff (especially gelinas) is taking on this matter. The GreX BBS is *supposed* to be a forum _supporting_ free speech on the Internet. One would think the staff members would be biased towards any person arguing to restore something that has been censored. Instead, users have to write pages and pages of text to convince the staff and users that an event that has come to pass was indeed an act of censorship! I think the content of the webpage and bylaws should be changed, since the GreX staff cannot clearly decide what is or isn't censorship and refuse to stand up for violated users.
I'm sorry that I'm not being clear, cyklone. I _do_ think the lack of context is sufficient cause to remove the entirety of an item. Similarly, I think it more aesthetic to remove the entirety of an item rather than just pieces of it. But I don't really object to context-less posts, I just think that we (writers and readers) are usually better off without them. I do NOT think that is censorship, but apparently you can't make fine distinctions. No big deal.
This response has been erased.
The funny thing is, now he's only posting what he thinks is right. The funny thing is, gelinas was complaining that cyklone was doing the same thing naught twenty responses ago. The funny thing is, cyklone always had facts, but gelinas never did.
There is certainly room for different opinions here. Really, there is. And you can disagree with someone having a different take on it without going to DEFCOM ONE. I'm looking forward to this vote being over. I miss Grex.
Er, DEFCON, I think.
Is it "making up lies about your opposition" to falsely accuse your opposition of doing so?
(defcon; defcon = defense condition)
Thanks Bruce, I honestly never knew what defcon meant before.
<voteadm_request> This is a member proposal. Discussion is spinning off into other issues which I don't really want to take the time to follow in detail right now, although maybe I'll catch up later when I have more time to spare. So jep, if and when you want this brought to a vote and have posted a final wording here, could you please email me? Thanks. </voteadm_request>
We should make this into a discussion about defcon
Summary of resp:289: "I'm always right, my logic is infallible, therefore whoever disagrees with me must either be stupid or have evil motives." (I see this method of argument a lot on conservative talk shows.)
Cyclone, I must say one thing (sorry this is so late) -- not ALL users expected their words to be on forever. I certainly thought that old agoras were weeded after a period of time (say a year). I have no problem with anything I've ever said on here being zapped after the conversation is over, whether I explicitly am asked or not. If I wanted a copy, I'd keep one.
Yeah, but who will decide when the conversation is over? It's never "over", and you just demonstrated that perfectly.
I sent resp:255 to remmers and voteadm.
Sorry I missed that response - t'was like looking for a needle in a haystack. Okay, I'll start the vote today or early tomorrow.
Yeah, I understand the problem. It took me a while to find it myself.
I request, once again as I did in item:75:resp:203 on Wednesday, January 21, that the Board resolve the questions that have been raised by myself and others about what happens if both proposals pass, before the proposals are placed before the voters. I think otherwise the voters can not know what they are voting to decide, and that therefore the outcome of the two votes will possibly be moot. I don't know of a procedure for bringing this request into the decision making process. I hope someone on the Board can take charge, though.
I note that this proposal is expressed as the question, "Shall the staff be directed to leave these two items as permanently deleted?" A negative answer does not require any action be taken. According to the minutes of the most recent board meeting, the votes are to be run concurrently. The only conflict is if both initiatives pass, which would quite clearly indicate that the membership wants the items restored but agrees that the divorce items should not be restored. The consensus appears to me to be that if both initiatives fail, no action should be taken.
This response has been erased.
I was busily setting up the vote program this morning and getting ready to start the voting, since John had given me the go-ahead. Then I decided to catch up on Coop. Big mistake. :) According to the rules, once the discussion period on a proposal is over, the proposer has control over when the vote starts. I interpret John's #312 as withdrawing the go-ahead, so I won't start the vote on his proposal unless and until he gives me the go-ahead again. Once the voting starts though, there's no turning back....
Thanks greemers!
I apologize for the confusion, but there was really no consensus a week ago on how this situation ought to be resolved. It appears there is now. That being the case, I have no objection to the voting on both items commencing. John, please go ahead and start this vote. Thanks!
Okay, I'll start the vote tonight.
Rock on fremmerS!
The polls are now open. Type "vote" at a Unix shell prompt, "!vote" just about anywhere else. You get to choose which of the two propositions to vote on. When done with your first choice, you get to choose again. You can vote more than once; your last vote overwrites any previous one. Therefore, it is appropriate to continue discussing the proposal here during the voting period.
Thank you, remmers. My votes have now been cast. :)
I strongly urge a *NO* vote on this proposal. I have seen no good reason why jep's items should be treated any differently than valerie's. Since there seems to be agreement that all of jep's responses will be scribbled for him before his unkilled items are publicly made available, things will be set straight for him to do what he should have done, what he was already allowed to do, before the unauthorized item killing (namely scribble and retire).
I would have liked the proposal to include the option of other posters also scribbling their responses before the item was restored since those responses seem to be worrying jep and most posters would have agreed to this.
I voted yes on this proposal.
I, of course, also voted yes on this proposal. There is no compelling reason for the items to be restored. They won't be any good to anyone. There has been very little, if any, harm from them being deleted. I don't think anyone would have ever noticed they were gone if I'd had the power to delete them on my own, unless I said something. They were last written to two years ago. On the other hand, having them gone has been considerably relieving to me, aside from the time, energy and stress of dealing with them again at all. There were no tools for mass deleting one's own responses at the time that these items were removed. I'm knowledgeable about Unix, but not a good scripter or programmer. I could have gone through thousands of responses and deleted them one at a time, and hoped I didn't drawn attention to the items before I was done... that really wasn't practical.
Yes, but now that you've been promised a mechanism to delete your words, why are you so hellbent on censoring the words of others?
Just vote NO!
(I voted no.)
Thank you, remmers and albaugh.
re resp:326: I have written at great length and with great patience about my request, my decision and my reasoning. I don't think I have any more to say.
THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP< FATTY
I voted no.
I voted "yes".
Thanks very much to all who have voted "yes" on my proposal. I appreciate it very much.
Aren't you supposed to be buying us all whisky if we even show up to vote?
This response has been erased.
Sindi, I didn't know you were a whiskey drinker. Yes, I can supply Bushmill's to anyone who shows up at my home to vote.
This response has been erased.
Jep knows I am joking. I drink water, juice, or milk, usually water. If we show up at jep's home in the next month by bike I will drink whisky. Or even water from the local swimming hole if we can crack the ice.
Todd, you are welcome at my house any time.
This response has been erased.
If Va1erie were a member, it's clear how her vote would be cast.
I voted no.
The treasurer has informed me that the voter list is up to date.
With 51 out of 82 eligible members voting, the results are:
yes 34
no 17
The motion passes.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Thanks very much to the members of Grex for supporting my request. I very much appreciate it. I also very much regret the need I saw which caused me to make this request. Thanks also to all of those who participated in the discussion and/or the vote. I can only hope the animosity from the discussion will die down and that Grex can go back to being as pleasant for it's users as it has been for the rest of it's existence.
This response has been erased.
You're welcome! Feel free to e-mail me if you feel I should keep quiet if staff abuses someone/something and keeps quiet.
You're welcome! Now you can continue your life as a pussy.
grex = mutual admiration society of the mildly asperger's afflicted. i hope the folks who told me that they archived those items in question weren't kidding.
Why?
He likes little boys.
i like most kids.
resp:347 You're welcome, but I don't think you get it. I'm sure you are kind and well intentioned, but I don't think you get it. (Not to mention you're not here to read this, either.)
Good thing he isn't; it's too nice.
TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE
You have several choices: