response 1 of 34:

Oct 30 20:35 UTC 2001

It seems likely there will be two competing proposals then, since 
I or someone else is likely to offer a proposal to allow users to 
withdraw their text.

response 3 of 34:

Oct 30 20:49 UTC 2001

In order for this proposal to be legally sound all members would have to
agree to transfer ownership of their postings to Grex. I recommend that
you retain legal counsel to ensure that this is done correctly.

response 5 of 34:

Oct 30 22:14 UTC 2001

Mary, under your proposal in resp:0, how would Grex address issues of 
libel, and of copyrights held by non-Grexers?

response 7 of 34:

Oct 30 22:59 UTC 2001

Re: #5  It doesn't address the anyone's copyrights, Grexers or
non-Grexers.  When someone posts here it is with the understanding
they are agreeing to be "published".  It maybe should be made clear
that comments, once published, cannot be taken back.  Because they can't,
really.  Within minutes you have no idea who has read it, made a copy
of it, or forwarded it elsewhere.  Grex can't control any of that and
we shouldn't be in the business of pretending we want to or can.

In terms or libel I'd rather we stay out of that one too.  What is said is
between the poster and the person being spoken about.  In fact, allowing
someone to say something libelous for a period of time and then delete the
record is a horrible policy.  The person who is the object of the comment
has the right to see what others have read, don't you think?  If someone
is sorry about comments they've made then the right thing to do is say you
are wrong and apologize.

response 11 of 34:

Oct 30 23:32 UTC 2001

OK, question for the bylaws experts:  what is required to start the 
calendar ticking on (1) a proposal to disable the scribble command, and 
(2) a proposal to allow users to permanently withdraw their text from 
public reading on Grex?
 
And, how are two conflicting proposals handled?  Logically it seems 
one would want a "radio button" vote, where users would vote for
either of the two proposals, or none of them, but I'm not sure the 
bylaws allow for that.

response 13 of 34:

Oct 31 00:58 UTC 2001

I think this is an ideal course of action.
It kills the ambiguity, and hopefully the arguments.
Make  notice that such actions are likely to take place, and put it up to a
member vote.  Make the notice stand for the *full duration* of the voting
period, not just as a one time message. Objections can be made publicly in
coop.cf, and members may vote.  Requests by individual users to have their
expurgated posts preserved may have copies of their expurgated posts emailed
to them in the even that the vote is in the affirmative of the policy change,
and the one time notice in the motd (or as part of a wrapper for bbs) will
notify all users, new or old, that the policy has changed, and of what that
policy is.

response 15 of 34:

Oct 31 02:09 UTC 2001

I have no problems with making the scribbled logs go away.  But I'm very
against the idea of people being allowed to later go back and erase or edit
what they've posted.  If you weren't fine with it the first time, why in hell
did you post it anyway?

response 17 of 34:

Oct 31 02:36 UTC 2001

I personally would prefer the option Ken advocated in resp:1.  (Allowing
people to withdraw their postings without leaving a publicly readable log
entry.)

My problems with the "no deletions" rule:

  (1)  It basically requires getting users to agree to some explicit license
       terms.  I'd actually prefer to keep operating on implicit license
       alone.  It's just friendlier.  It does mean giving authors a fair
       amount of control over their text.

  (2)  Scenario:  Someone gets pissed over something that was posted on Grex.
       Maybe it's about copyrights, maybe libel, maybe porn, whatever.  They
       contact the poster and say "Retract your posting, or I'll whatever!"
       The poster says "I'm sorry, the day I posted that my wife had left
       me, my dog had died, and I was drunk and had eaten two whole boxes of
       Twinkies."  I regret it terribly, and would withdraw it, but I can't.
       You'll have to contact Grex.

       In other words, all problems of this nature become the problem of
       Grex's staff and board.  Or rather, remain the problem of Grex's
       staff and board, since this is already the case under the existing
       policy.

       I'd rather have Grex be in a situation of being able to say.  "Postings
       on Grex are the responsibility of the poster.  If you don't like what
       someone posted contact them.  If you don't like their answer, sue
       them."

       We'll never be able to do that 100%.  If the poster is anonymous or
       can't be contacted, it'd fall in our lap.  People who can't work things
       out with the poster would like still try to drag us into it.  But I'd
       still rather leave as much of the responsibility for a posting on the
       poster as we can.

response 19 of 34:

Oct 31 02:42 UTC 2001

I am more in favor of the "actually enable scribble" proposal than i am of
the disclaimer proposal.  not really, because i am not opinionated.

response 21 of 34:

Oct 31 03:26 UTC 2001

is it really just about "nobody else does so we shoudn't either?"

response 23 of 34:

Oct 31 04:04 UTC 2001

Re #10, para. 1:  That is not a problem.  Newspapers cannot
withdraw a contested article; it is there in the record, a
part of history.  Once posted, something on Grex is also a
bit of history, still in people's heads (and perhaps on disks)
even if it's gone from Grex's.  The solution is the same in
both cases:  instead of purging history, you publish a retraction.

I like Mary's proposal and I will vote for it.