This is a member proposal. I propose that item 39 in the current incarnation of the coop conference be killed by staff or FWs as appropriate.138 responses total.
I'd like to encourage members to vote no on this proposal. I think item 39 generated a discussion that was important and should be kept for later review.
I vote yes.
Since it has become clear that the expectation of the grex community is that item authors can NOT delete other people's commments in their items, I hope this proposal is withdrawn or fails. Its passage *would* set a precedent I, at least, would prefere were not set.
I vote ?
This response has been erased.
I'm sorry Jamie, I'll learn to speak more clearly than I did in item 68, response 241. I, as a member of staff, am opposed to removing item 39. Valerie was not "The staff", she was one of several staff members.
If M-Net's treasurer embezzles the full contents of M-Net's bank account and loses it in a slot machine, would you then declare that people shouldn't give money to M-Net because it is the demonstrated policy of M-net to gamble away it's funds?
This response has been erased.
Good God.
Ah Jamie, I'm quickly learning why you're so loved here for your understanding of the English language. When someone is accused of a crime and undergoes a trial, do we assume that the law broken is suddenly broken and null for all until the trial is done? No.
heh
Nicely phrased, kip!
As long as we're on the legal analogy, I'd like to point out that not all rulings which contravene previously standard practice actually establish valid precedent.
Re resp:5: The current policy is staff will only remove items if your name is jep.
Or, as they prefer, JEP.
(The current policy, as much as there is one, is that staff will not remove items.)
Re #13: Remarkable how few people seem to understand that.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Umm, to which address did you send that? I only have the Jan 6th request in my staff email account.
This response has been erased.
>> So, it's been like a week since I requested that coop:39 be killed >> because I don't like it. I have received no response at all from the >> staff and the item is still there. Could I again request that it be >> killed? > As you know, it is not possible to delete the item in accordance to > Grex policy, so staff cannot act on this request. If compelling reasons > were shown why it needs to be deleted, then it is theoretically possible > that either the board or membership might vote you a special exception > which would enable staff to act. > > My guess as a non-board member is that unless the circumstances were far, > far more compelling than any case now under consideration, it would be the > preference of the board to defer that decision to the membership. This > seems to be possible in this instance, because having publically announced > that you wish this item deleted, you clearly are not concerned that people > might save copies before the item can be deleted if your desire to have it > deleted was publicized. > > As such, the most effective way for you to waste as many people's times > as possible while further burdening Grex's already cumbersome and > overloaded administrative processes with an idiotic attempt to make an > imaginary point might be to enter a member proposal. > > I wish you all the luck in your endeaver that you deserve. > > - Jan Wolter
This response has been erased.
> As you know, it is not possible to delete the item in accordance to > Grex policy, so staff cannot act on this request. And just what *is* that policy, pray tell?! If there were such a policy, surely it was documented, and could be dragged out and posted for all to read. And there would therefore be no need for the proposal on the subject now alive in coop. Either there is (was!) a policy or there isn't. If there is, let's see it, please.
The "personal favors for favored persons" policy has not been written anywhere as it directly contradicts grex's professed dedication to free and uncensored speech.
(resp:24 there isn't a policy, and the item can't be deleted in accordance with a policy that doesn't exist. that's my take on what Jan meant, although he's certainly more qualified to clarify his comments than I am.) (I also think Jan's response was amusing, although it doesn't please me that he had to write it.) :P
Not that I support jp2's call to have item #39 deleted, but if there truly is no policy, then it certainly can't be used to explain why the item can't be deleted *because* of policy. If I am missing obvious sarcasm in the response, then I plead guilty. A "better" response IMO would be something like "C'mon jp2, gimme a break, you know there is no policy on this yet, so we are under no obligation to act on your request. We are going to do what should have been done before jep's items were deleted: Have grex reach consensus or see a policy established."
This response has been erased.
Seems a fair trade.
Just like the board election.
What makes anyone think that all Grex policies are documented? Are all the policies where you work documented? Do you expect Grex to be a more beareucratic institution than a for-profit business?
Do you think that non-profits and not-for-profits are excused from documenting things in writing? Guess again. Your questions again display the "grex as personal playground" approach I find so distasteful. At the very least, when grex claims to support free and uncensored speech, then yes, I damn sure expect any policies in opposition to free speech and in support of censorship to be in writing. I really don't think that's asking too much.
With all due respect, aruba - and I *do* respect you and other grex baff - a policy is not a "policy" unless it *is* documented. Otherwise it's "folklore", passed down from one baff to another, I guess. And allows for a valerie to claim "I *thought* it was OK for someone to kill her own post, so that's all I did."
It's asking way too much to ask that all Grex policies be documented. We wouldn't have a Grex at all if that were a requirement, because the people who founded it would never have agreed to that. Grex policy has always been to have as few rules as possible. Grex is not anyone's personal playground. But it is not a government organization or a publicly traded company, either. If you want that level of organization, you're going to have to look somewhere else. In particular, you're going to have to go to an institution where you're paying someone's salary to serve you. I don't object to clarifying policies, but your indignation at them not being written in blood already displays a real misunderstanding of the way things work. In order for Grex to function at all, we need to strike a balance between staff members knowing what's expected of them, but not expecting them to meet such high standards that they won't be willing to do it for free.
Kevin slipped in. With all due respect to him, he's wrong. A policy doesn't have to be written down to exist. Writing it down clarifies that everyone is on the same page, provided everyone has read what's written. Should we write up a handbook of grex policies, and require all prospective staffers to pass a test on the contents?
All members and users, too?
Re resp:35: It seems, at least in this case, there was a disagreement about one of these "unwritten policies" you're talking about. So, I feel I have to ask how staff members find out about these policies, and how anyone can judge whether one is broken when there's nothing to base that decision on.
(I'm trying hard to believe that talk about "unwritten policies" is not just an excuse for being arbitrary and selective about enforcement.)
I don't know if you consider it a "policy" or not, but look at all the pages & pages associated with newuser! I am not looking for a *treatise* on every single think that it is important for baff to know about, but there should probably at least be something listed (e.g. an outline) about all the things that a baff would have to consider. Then for each item, there may or may not be a written policy for it, but "if you don't know you better ax somebody". So I guess that the proposal (for member vote) alive in this coop re: killing items is needed after all...
biff baff boff
This response has been erased.
Clearly it's Grex's policy to trust the staff to make decisions where there are no written policies. And to trust the users, the fairwitnesses, and the Board. There's a general philosophy which people pick up through association with other users, and also some of it is written in some places. I work at a pretty regimented company, and it in turn is owned by a very highly regimented (and government regulated) company. Even so, not all decisions which can come up are written down. There are enough rules no one can possibly read them all and keep them in mind in order to apply them at all times. I have a general sense of how the rules apply, and then I live within that general sense. Grex doesn't have a professional rule-writing staff as my employer does. Grex staff members have a general sense of the Grex philosophy, and they apply it as they think best, and we can all live with that, pretty much. Usually if they don't know, staff members ask first. They ask each other, or the Board, or occasionally post an item to ask, or even have a formal request for a vote, though that's rare. It works fine. It always had. It would now; the current situation would be manageable (there's disagreement but Grex can be reasonable and deal with that) if it weren't for excessive heed being paid to a few users who want attention and trouble, not a solution. Look for those who are being inciting and not seeking a solution -- if you have to -- and stop paying so much attention to them, and then Grex can go back to being Grex. I think these last two weeks have been the worst two weeks Grex has seen. So do most who come here regularly, I bet. Some think it's the best. That's why there's a problem. They're having a ball, and too many of us (including me) are falling for it.
Jep, there is a solution. It is reasonable. You just don't like it. And it is disingenuous for anyone to suggest this is merely a matter of staff having to figure out how to act in some gray area. Grex professed to support free and uncensored speech. There is no room to argue that what valerie did, both for herself and on your behalf, wasn't a violation of that express policy.
No one's arguing that, cyklone.
Cyklone, you don't have much interest in Grex other than meddling with it's policy. Your views of what is reasonable for those who regularly spend time on Grex are just not that important.
(Basically jp2 is asking whether Grex is ISO 9001[?] compliant, which is something that businesses do voluntarily, rarely by regulation)
Re #45: Drop the self-righteous BS. I was obviously involved enough with grex to make numerous posts to your divorce items. On that basis alone your logic is unsupportable and my participation in this debate is more than justified. I DO NOT appreciate a user attempting to deny me access to my own words or the words of others. Is that clear enough? It also appears as if you are still desperately trying to find new reasons for voters to go your way when the facts and policies (at least those that were commonly expressed and understood, ie free and uncensored speech) do not support your position. Did it ever occur to you that if you were to be a little less obstinate, and a little more forthcoming about the facts and your reasons, people might voluntarily do what you are now demanding be done without their permission? Your attitude is pissing away a lot of the good will people felt/feel toward you. You might want to give that some thought.
Grex runs Picospan, not YAPP.
There is nothing more I know of that I can say to explain my actions. I think I've said it all. I doubt if there has ever been an action taken on Grex which was so thoroughly documented, explained and justified; right down to the minute by minute timing and the thoughts behind all of my actions. If I say anything new, it will obviously seem like rationalization. Anything new I say was probably not something I considered then; it's something I've thought of since. That's rationalization. But it's not necessarily wrong. I don't think were any postings by "cyklone" in the divorce items, so it wouldn't be obvious at all that you posted there. Oh, I don't really doubt it was you, since you've said so and I don't have any reason to disbelieve you. It just is not obvious. I don't recall if there was ever a posting on Grex by "cyklone" until you decided to get involved in Grex policy. Your .plan says you've been here for several years, though. You must have done something while you were here. I just don't know what it was. I think people should consider that there are several loginids here who have done little on Grex but enter items in coop. Why is that? Is it because of a great and selfless, interest in making sure Grex is well run, and amazing ability to analyze Grex's needs and well-being? They sure are adamant... it must be from strong principles. I guess. Things sure are better, here on Grex, aren't they, since these people got involved in administration for the past few months? I've noticed many improvements since they showed up here in coop. Let me think for a minute and I'll list them. Hmm, let me think for another minute.
This response has been erased.
Let me try another approach. Jep, you say "There is nothing more I know of that I can say to explain my actions. I think I've said it all. I doubt if there has ever been an action taken on Grex which was so thoroughly documented, explained and justified; right down to the minute by minute timing and the thoughts behind all of my actions. First of all, if you think I am mistaken about what follows, please feel free to direct me to your item and post numbers rather than reposting it yourself. What I do recall, without such a review, is that you wished in hindsight you had never entered the ites. You also expressed concern your son might learn of those items. You then went on to discount the possibility that such a discovery could have a net positive value and also, I think, mentioned you'd simply prefer not to deal with it. Here's the problem: even if you get your way, the cat is out of the bag. The *gist* of much of your text is now present here for all to see. In other words, if your son uses the same diligence you suppose it will take for him to find your divorce items, he will stumble across these in the coop cf. What is next? Will you be proposing to delete all such items in this cf? If you fear the polyboys will call his attention to the divorce item in much the same way they informed hera's son of her "sex with hubby" mnet items, guess what? They will just point him to these discussions instead (which I'm fairly certain have already been saved by someone on the system). Frankly, in terms of gaining perspective, your son would be better off, IMNSHO, reading the originals, which have far more context, as opposed to reading coop. It still seems to me that rather than engaging in some sort of vintage Soviet Russian rewrite (or "unwrite") of history, you would be better off figuring out how to deal with that inevitable day when you and your son come face to face with just how distraught you were over the divorce. You can discount my opinion as that of a "know-it-all." But I speak as a human being who knows most secrets cannot be buried and most certainly not yours. I'm sorry you can't see this or accept it as FACT. I am also sorry you are causing such problems for grex, and at least some of its users, in your pursuit of what is ultimately unobtainable.
re resp:51: Cyklone, now you're trying to run Grex from afar *and* telling me how to raise my son. Do you do this kind of stuff a lot?
Now I'm going to reread these items. I can't imagine it'll be boring, even if it's Saturday night.
(wow, uh oh! You didn't use enough noun specifiers! You'll confuse the girls.)
Neither of those statements are true so I can't very well answer your question. My saying you can't hide your feelings from your son (unless he stays off of grex and mnet and avoid grexers and mnetters) is not advice on raising him. You may wish my words weren't true, but you can't wish away the reality. At best you can hope he stays off mnet and grex and doesn't learn any other way. I'm sorry you can't accept that. And if you can't understand that you are merely confirming my belief you are slipping back into the same unproductive obstinance and willful refusal to deal with reality that marked your early posts in the divorce item.
<willcome snuck>
I don't get it. People like jep should thank us, for being custodians of GreX.
Cyklone, I don't need your advice on how to raise my son. Okay? How I raise him, and what I tell him, and my son in general, is outside of the debate. Okay? There will be no votes on Grex which will direct anything I do with regard to him. Got all that? I'm not suggesting or asking that these things be that way. I am telling you. Pick another direction; this one isn't productive. If you want to discuss raising children, go to the parenting conference. Which, by the way, I am not currently reading.
You know, Grex could use a good game of Nomic to serve as an outlet for certain folks.
Jep, your capacity for rational thought is clearly diminished if you perceive my statements as advice on how to raise your son. Pointing out the truth is not advice on raising your son. Obviously, this whole matter has hit a nerve with you, which is why I suggest you return to counseling for at least a short time. You are again displaying the same self-centered, petty, over-emotional behavior that characterized your early divorce item posts. What I am opposing is your misguided belief that your efforts to do what you feel is right for your son, in terms of limiting his access to grex items involving your divorce, should somehow prevail over grex's professed dedication to free and uncensored speech. A lot of damage is done in the name "for the children" and it appears to me you are willing to see grex suffer that damage to satisfy your notions of protecting your child. I do not feel that is a fair price for grex to pay. A vote in your favor would also be an incredibly damaging precedent for grex. As I have mentioned before, a favorable vote on your proposal would open the door for virtually any parent to come back to grex and say "as a parent it is my prerogative to remove entire items that I now feel would impair my ability to make parental decisions and/or relationship with my child." That simply cannot be permitted on a system that claims to support free and uncensored speech. The cat is out of the bag. You cannot unring the bell. Grex should restore the items and permit you and others to delete their posts. Deal with it.
This response has been erased.
Re resp:57: If by "custodian", you mean "someone who repeatedly creates trouble in the hope of driving away staff members." Re resp:61: A vote for jep's proposal would not set any precident worth talking about, except perhaps that if people want an item deleted they can take it to a member vote. It's pretty specific. As far as I can tell there's never been anything preventing this, and in most cases it'd be counterproductive anyway because it's too slow. Besides, we already have a more general proposal on the table about item removal. Also, telling your opponent that they need to see a shrink is rarely an effective debating technique.
No, that's not at all what I meant by custodian. It's never my intention to drive away staff members; they run off themselves. Look at the last two examples, dipshit.
Fine, I did the work for you. #83 of 125: by Dan Cross (cross) on Mon, Nov 10, 2003 (21:08): Oh, screw it. I'm actually so disgusted by Mary's comments on my action, that you don't have to prepare any legistlation, polytarp. I resign from staff as it is. And from Valerie Mates: it did cross my mind that if I get kicked off staff for this, I don't care. HEY GUESS WHAT, WE DON"T TRY TO KICK PEOPLE OFF STAFF.
This response has been erased.
Re #62: "Also, telling your opponent that they need to see a shrink is rarely an effective debating technique." Then perhaps my purpose is not clear. I'm not entering my posts as an intellectual exercise in debate, although I do recognize that is what many grexers like to do. I post for two reasons. The first is to make clear my belief that grex would abdicate its professed support of free and uncensored speech if the deleted items are not reinstated, and that no good reasons have been offered in support of deletion. My second reason is the same reason I posted to jep's divorce item. I thought I could provide insight that would help him and others in his position. I see him repeating the same behaviors I saw early in his divorce items. He sought professional help then and he said it was worthwhile. I am suggesting he consider that option again. This discussion appears to have hit an emotional nerve with him that I suspect has little or nothing to do with the merits of the deletion debate. Hence my suggestion.
I think that kind of advice really belongs somewhere other than the coop conference, Kurt. I'm not trying to prevent you from saying it, but I don't think it is apropos of a policy debate. As to your first purpose, you have made your point, and your position is clear now.
re 65 Damn! Now all I need to do is cause enough bullshit for YOU to quit.
resp:59 I'm not familiar with Nomic; care to enlighten me?
My apologies, I first read about Nomic in Douglas Hofstadter's "Metamagical Themas" column in Scientific American in 1982. Basically it is a game about law. You start with an initial set of rules which contain laws about how you can create new laws. The point of the game is to game the system by creating laws favorable to you and get the other players to pass those laws. Anyway, Peter Suber is the actual creator of the game, he maintains a webpage at http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/nomic.htm
<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 Jamie elect to bring it to a vote, is January 25.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Mary's a stupid bitch.
This response has been erased.
(jep killed the items before he knew about mary's disgusting actions)
TOD IS THE BEST M_NET MARRIAGE FW EVER>
My request to remove my two divorce items had nothing to do with the messages Mary Remmers posted and then removed last week, but her comments did illustrate a little of why it is not a good idea for me to have those items around. I don't agree that it's better to have those items restored, than to have them deleted. To me, and for me, it is better to have them deleted. I agree my actions are self-serving, to the extent that I asked the staff to delete my divorce items for my own good. Is it selfish to do something to benefit yourself when it has no affect on anyone else? *No one was reading those items*. They sure would be now, because of the policy discussion, and that's bad for me. It's clear to everyone here, right, that it would be bad for me? Potentially really, really bad? If it were me, deciding this kind of thing for someone else, I think I'd be weighing the interests of the group against those of the individual. If you vote to restore those items, you're voting that it's okay for me to be dragged through those items all over again, more than I ever would have been other than the circumstances of the last two weeks, because Grex's needs are more important. Just as directly and openly as I've ever done anything here, I'm asking you not to do that. I think I've laid it out as plainly as I can. I've posted every argument I can think of, and responded, I think, to every different remark against my position. I've tried... I've tried to be patient (though the issue is a lot more serious to me than it is to anyone else here). I've been pretty calm, most of the time anyway, and that doesn't come easy to me. Come what will, I appreciate everyone's consideration and am anxiously awaiting the results of the vote.
resp:70 Read through some of the URL. Seems like a pretty technical game. as far as the rest of this, it kinda reminds me of a Phil Collins song... can't recall the title, but the refrain went, "Always the same, it's just a shame, that's all."
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Re #80: Good point. I am also disturbed by all this talk of "potential harm" which is unsupported. Indeed, given Mary's actions, if there was a potential harm, it would quite likely have occurred already. I also see no discussion of the "potential benefit." Jep himself admitted he wished a similar item was around for him to read. Now that such an item is available for the next person in his position he wants to deny that person access to the very thing he wished he could have read. It is therefore disingenuous for jep to argue "tremendous potential harm to me/no benefit to anyone else." Sheesh.
This response has been erased.
Because then he would've know she was on to him.
Who knows what he would have done then?
Re #78 (jep): John, we certainly appreciate your sticking around to explain things. I understand you may need a break from Grex after this is all over, but I hope you'll come back when rested.
This response has been erased.
Have the cops ready too, like you did with Salcedo.
resp:79 Sure enough :) I wanted to find the lyrics... couldn't find them anywhere. But they fit, don't they?
This response has been erased.
Thanks for RUINING his life, Todd.
This response has been erased.
Yeah I've been following events, to the extent that I know he's been arrested again. But jesus man, you were the President of the BoD at the time. How could you have known so little about it? And if you're so paranoid, why does your site actually contain information not only about yourself, but about the case, which has virtually been forgotten?
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
tod, I'm cyberstalking your hot romanian wife. she doesn't answer my telegrams, though. Odd that!
Okay, I withdraw the statement that says tod had involvement with the cops arresting salcedo.
This response has been erased.
Don't tell greenie that (pardon the pun).
This response has been erased.
And have been ever since.
This response has been erased.
You're probaby still dealing with his money.
Todd: I believed from what willard said that you were in the loop, and it was Cahill who spoke to the press. Not me.
Thanks for ruining xdrxdr's life, jmsaul.
(And in fact, wait a minute -- I think I talked to you on the phone about all of it.) Re #105: I didn't.
If you didn't, why would people thank you for it?
Rather than acccuse people of ruining his life, why not ask who on the board cashed out from the whole ordeal? Arbornet wasn't the only entity to vacuum money out of Mr. Salcedo's wallet.
This response has been erased.
Good point.
Oh will the lot of you quit whining over what precendence has been set and decide what you want to happen. Let sleeping dogs lie already and decide based upon this experience what you want to happen in the future instead of hurling insults.
This response has been erased.
re111: yeah, just go to sleep and let the VANDALS run things. "let sleeping dogs lie" whatever, patsy.
This response has been erased.
So if we sent you and cyklone your files, you would be happy? (I am not sure how many other people don't care or don't want their entries in those items restored, I know that I didn't wish it.)
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
I think restoration is appropriate if grex is to truly support free and uncensored speech. However, I believe the vote shows that personal favors for favored persons has a higher priority here. As a matter of user control over their own words, even if there is no restoration I believe I am entitled to have my files. Those words were posted under the name dbunker, which someone else seems to have grabbed. Nevertheless, I believe there are ways I can convince staff I am indeed the real dbunker.
Give it a rest. I would not support -anyone- viewing those files again, ever.
This response has been erased.
Or a Jew.
This response has been erased.
plz post a list
This response has been erased.
Re #119: So I shouldn't be able to view *MY OWN* words? How delightfully unprincipled of you!
This response has been erased.
Re #119: That's a very strong position. Why? Annoyance at Jamie?
I'm frustrated. It appears to me that we have extremestes who can onlly be dealt with by extreme positions (extremists).
This response has been erased.
Yeah, taking matters upon your own hands to create new rules and set precedent is definitely not "extreme".
Re #128: Saying no one should ever have access to the deleted text, not even their own words, sounds about as extreme as you can get.
Re #128: From my point of view, there are extremists on both sides.
I could agree with that.
This response has been erased.
I'm a fan of your wife.
This response has been erased.
She said she couldn't write French :(
TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE
You have several choices: