|
|
| Author |
Message |
tod
|
|
A request
| 
Feb 26 18:55 UTC 2004 |
This item has been erased.
|
| 163 responses total. |
anderyn
|
|
response 1 of 163:
|
Feb 26 20:30 UTC 2004 |
Todd, have you asked Valerie for your responses back? Sent a polite email and
asked her to send them to you? (I am assuming here that she has copies of her
own baby diaries.) Wouldn't that be the first line of defense, and best, if
all you want is your words back?
|
salad
|
|
response 2 of 163:
|
Feb 27 00:42 UTC 2004 |
AHAHAAHA TOD" SINCE I ACTUALLY INITIATED THE ACTION AND YOU USED "WE" DOES THAT
MEAN THAT YOU"RE PART OF MY "GROUP" ?? OH MAN I HOPE YOU DON"T GET RAW
TOMATOES THROWN AT YOU OR SOMETHING
|
salad
|
|
response 3 of 163:
|
Feb 27 00:43 UTC 2004 |
re 0
(The baby diaries were deleted over a month and a half ago, btw)
|
tod
|
|
response 4 of 163:
|
Feb 27 01:36 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 5 of 163:
|
Feb 27 01:39 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
salad
|
|
response 6 of 163:
|
Feb 27 15:27 UTC 2004 |
staff sucks
|
other
|
|
response 7 of 163:
|
Feb 27 15:52 UTC 2004 |
Staff does what what the membership and the board request of them.
I.e. maintain the system and keep it running and available for all
of us to use. They do a damn good job of it.
In this instance, the staff has done exactly what the membership has
requested of them. Valerie did something else, and Valerie is not
on staff.
|
tod
|
|
response 8 of 163:
|
Feb 27 16:53 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 9 of 163:
|
Feb 27 22:05 UTC 2004 |
Yup. Couldn't have said it better myself.
|
other
|
|
response 10 of 163:
|
Feb 27 22:42 UTC 2004 |
I cannot dispute #8. However, what you seem to be failing to
acknowledge is that those are, and always have been, the rules under
which this system operates.
|
tod
|
|
response 11 of 163:
|
Feb 27 23:13 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
salad
|
|
response 12 of 163:
|
Feb 27 23:25 UTC 2004 |
YEAH<> WHERE"S THE MEMBERSHIP FOR ME< HUH?
|
rational
|
|
response 13 of 163:
|
Feb 27 23:26 UTC 2004 |
YEAH< HUH?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 14 of 163:
|
Feb 28 00:38 UTC 2004 |
Re #10: Perhaps you could point me to the rules (in effect at the time I
posted in jep's items) that said my own words could be removed by a
deliberate act of staff abuse or by a vote of the membership. Both those
things were incredibly sleazy and I do not believe either was supported by
any rules.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 15 of 163:
|
Feb 28 01:09 UTC 2004 |
When Valerie wrote such an effective scribble program, I'm a little
baffled why she didn't originally do that initially (delete her
responses) instead of deleting the entire items.
Fact remains-- when she deleted her items and jep's, she squelched a
lot of what other people wrote. People can argue all day long whether
it was censorship or not, but other people's writing was deleted
without their permission.
|
jp2
|
|
response 16 of 163:
|
Feb 28 01:54 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
salad
|
|
response 17 of 163:
|
Feb 28 19:47 UTC 2004 |
re 15 I'm baffled too, as I've pointed out countless times.
|
other
|
|
response 18 of 163:
|
Feb 28 20:32 UTC 2004 |
The one rule that supercedes them all is that the membership makes
the rules. That's how it has always been on Grex. No policy is
immune to overrule by the membership.
14: As for a "deliberate act of staff abuse," no rules apply,
because by definition, none can.
|
rational
|
|
response 19 of 163:
|
Feb 28 20:33 UTC 2004 |
Only if you're a technocrat. I'm pretty sure staff can abuse the system, if
you're a humanist.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 20 of 163:
|
Feb 28 20:47 UTC 2004 |
Re #18: That's not true. You could make a rule that, if staff commit an
abuse, the system will be restored as closely as possible to the
state it was in before the abuse. While you can't prevent staff
from being irresponsible, you can make it clear that whatever they
accomplish by doing it will be futile, because the rest of the
staff will undo it within days.
Unfortunately, that isn't what happened.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 21 of 163:
|
Feb 28 22:51 UTC 2004 |
Re #18: Your statement can be read two ways. The first is that the members
vote on policies, which means any policy can be changed as of the date the
members vote to change it. The second is that members can vote to
essentially nullify the effect of policies that others thought were in
effect at the time they acted in reliance on those previously established
policies. The second example, by reaching back in time, is far more
extreme and, I'm sorry to say, what grex voters endorsed with their
anti-restoration votes.
|
other
|
|
response 22 of 163:
|
Feb 29 00:08 UTC 2004 |
21: Both are legitimate readings. The membership is the ultimate
arbiter of what happens here. I can certainly imagine decisions
which might result in the immediate en masse resignation of the
board and staff, or with other equally disastrous results but those
decisions would be legitimate within the parameters of this system
anyway.
The danger in a democratic society is that the majority of the
society can at any time vote to destroy it, and they'd succeed.
|
rational
|
|
response 23 of 163:
|
Feb 29 00:08 UTC 2004 |
Or possibly by masturbation, don't you think?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 24 of 163:
|
Feb 29 01:17 UTC 2004 |
Re 20: I don't know that what valerie did was an act of abuse. Many disagree
with it, and I have come to agree that it shouldn't have been done, but that
doesn't make it abuse. It occurs to me that *this* is the basic disagreement.
Were it abuse, it should be undone. If it were not abuse, the appropriate
action is not clear and so the membership must decide what to do.
|