response 4 of 39:

Mar 14 06:49 UTC 2004

The difference between the two situations is that the items could be
restored at any time, should that be what the membership wanted, but not
removed again, should _that_ be what the membership wanted, while the
vandals canNOT be cleaned up after later but can be restored at any time;
the damage they did, if left for 24 days (two weeks for discussion and
then ten days of votiing) would be beyond repair.  But if the membership
wants the damage restored, I'll quite willingly put it back.  (Of course,
I'd then resign from the staff and board, because grex would no longer
be manageable or useable.)

Your dishonesty lies in *knowing* this (you are too smart not to have
realised it on your own) but pretending _not_ to be able to see it.

response 6 of 39:

Mar 14 14:59 UTC 2004

You also know for a fact that you've repeatedly said you rely on what more
experience staff members say, becasuse you're too incompetent to figure it
out for yourself.  You also know remmers has said this:

 #52 of 157: by John H. Remmers (remmers) on Mon, Mar  1, 2004 (12:09):
  Of course not.  And I'd hope that Grex staff would take reasonable
  steps to correct any damage, intentional or otherwise, inflicted by
  anyone, staff or not.  In fact, the staff does that all the time,
  mopping up after users who fill up the disk or do other harmful
  stuff.

  Having a staff member do a baddie like that took us by surprise.
  I'd like to think that the staff would have ultimately decided to
  do the right thing by way of correction.  But remember that you are
  the person who decided to move right away to a member vote, effectively
  taking the decision out of the staff's hands.

Ah HA!  remmers, who's much more experience than you, knows Grex doesn't take
action on pending member initiatives.  Why did you lie?

response 8 of 39:

Mar 14 15:20 UTC 2004

"But remember that you are the person who decided to move right away to a
member vote, effectively taking the decision out of the staff's hands." is
quite easily distilled to a general statement, and everything you say is quite
quickly distilled to moronic.

response 10 of 39:

Mar 14 15:49 UTC 2004

People posting serious and grave concerns isn't a problem, md.

response 16 of 39:

Mar 14 18:09 UTC 2004

Right.  The quote from me above is definitely out of context.  Reading a
bit further down it that item, there's this:
 
-- BEGIN QUOTE

 #129:62 by Kevin Albaugh (albaugh) on Tue, Mar  2, 2004 (14:20)
  While I can possibly buy the notion that once the motion was made staff was
  reticent to act on their own, I think the major reason for inaction is that
  this situation had never come up before, and it wasn't clear exactly what
  should be done or how & who to do it.  If jp2 had known that the staff were
  ending deliberation once the motion was made, he could have said something
  like "the staff is free to do what it would have done had the motion not been
  made", and that to me would not have resulted in any inappropriate action
  having been taken.  I.e. if the staff already had a policy of restoring
  mistakenly deleted items, then they would have proceded to do so, regardless
  of any motion being made to do so (and in fact not requiring such a motion).
  
  This all goes under the category of "live and learn".
 
 ----
 #129:63 by saladman (salad) on Tue, Mar  2, 2004 (17:54)
  Yeah, learn that GreX sucks.
  
 
 ----
 #129:64 by Joseph M Saul (jmsaul) on Tue, Mar  2, 2004 (21:37)
  So... the next time this happens, all that's necessary to prevent staff
 action
  to restore the items is for some random member to make a proposal in Coop?
  
  Are you sure that's the way you want it to work?
 
 ----
 #129:65 by John H. Remmers (remmers) on Wed, Mar  3, 2004 (06:30)
  No, I hardly think we'd want it to work that way.  Kevin's #62 is
  pretty close to my own thinking.

-- END QUOTE

That is, if there's a policy in place, merely entering a proposal to
change it doesn't suspend it.  Problem with the item deletions was that
there wasn't a policy already in place.

response 22 of 39:

Mar 15 04:57 UTC 2004

Right, it punishes them by saying that they support free speech, and then
deleting items en masse behind their back.

response 24 of 39:

Mar 15 05:39 UTC 2004

The strategies "many system administrators" (name one.) take to prevent
"crackers" are, of course, only applicable to closed systems.  Anyone
who's going to be running around "cracking" Grex is going to be able to
get its usable IDs real easy.

There were VERY good reasons for posting the password file, and, even if
there weren't, things don't need reasons to exist.

Locking accounts in this case isn't going to prevent abuse in this case
because there was none.