|
|
| Author |
Message |
naftee
|
|
Potential censorship
| 
Jan 6 02:27 UTC 2004 |
I have compiled a list of circumstantial evidence, if, when taken in context,
shows a very disturbing sequence of events. Mr Wolter, login janc, when
repairing the GreX machine, happened to stumble across item 39 in the agora
conference on m-net's bbs, regarding his wife's baby diary, which he found
very insulting. He entered a response about this; here is the header:
#211 Jan Wolter [janc] (40) (Mon, Jan 5, 2004 (07:23)):
Later on, Mrs. Mates read the same item and responded to it; here is the
header:
#217 Valerie Mates [popcorn] (4) (Mon, Jan 5, 2004 (11:49)):
In it, she alludes to the fact that the diary had been purged. Research
revealed the diary was located in the femme conference. However, some items
are missing. Having a look at the bbs errorlog, we find this:
----Valerie Mates: valerie(112) pid=13463
cf=/bbs/femme 81 ps T3.3a Mon Jan 5 11:59:08 2004
prompt="(oops)? " (prompt) cmd was: kill 81^J
error was:You can't do that!
----PicoSpan file owner: cfadm(60) pid=13712
cf=/bbs/femme 81 ps T3.3a Mon Jan 5 12:00:01 2004
prompt="(oops)? " (prompt) cmd was: kill 81^J
error was:Deleting message 81
----PicoSpan file owner: cfadm(60) pid=13712
cf=/bbs/femme 106 ps T3.3a Mon Jan 5 12:00:13 2004
prompt="(oops)? " (prompt) cmd was: kill 106^J
error was:Deleting message 106
----PicoSpan file owner: cfadm(60) pid=13712
cf=/bbs/femme 145 ps T3.3a Mon Jan 5 12:00:19 2004
prompt="(oops)? " (prompt) cmd was: kill 145^J
error was:Deleting message 145
----PicoSpan file owner: cfadm(60) pid=13712
cf=/bbs/femme 142 ps T3.3a Mon Jan 5 12:00:25 2004
prompt="(oops)? " (prompt) cmd was: kill 142^J
error was:Deleting message 142
----PicoSpan file owner: cfadm(60) pid=13712
cf=/bbs/femme 117 ps T3.3a Mon Jan 5 12:00:34 2004
prompt="(oops)? " (prompt) cmd was: kill 117^J
error was:Deleting message 117
----PicoSpan file owner: cfadm(60) pid=13712
cf=/bbs/femme 113 ps T3.3a Mon Jan 5 12:00:42 2004
prompt="(oops)? " (prompt) cmd was: kill 113^J
error was:Deleting message 113
I would like to point your attention to the dates and times. Ten minutes
after responding in m-net's agora conference, Mrs. Mates enters the femme
conference and tries to delete some items. A few minutes later, the
conference admin enters and deletes them for good.
I sincerely hope these items were not the aforementioned baby diary. However
I have good reason to believe it was. If so, a great and evil act of
censorship has taken place. Regardless of the potential sensitivity of the
material, they did not merit censorship.
I demand action.
|
| 393 responses total. |
willcome
|
|
response 1 of 393:
|
Jan 6 02:38 UTC 2004 |
I thank soup for bringing this matter to our attention.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 2 of 393:
|
Jan 6 03:09 UTC 2004 |
Valerie reported her actions, but not their cause, to the Board and staff.
I see no reason to assume any wrong-doing on her part.
|
willcome
|
|
response 3 of 393:
|
Jan 6 03:12 UTC 2004 |
If I mail bombed the system, but I reported it first, would I be let off?
No. Neither should Valerie: she actually censored items with HUNDREDS of
responses from other users. That is a SERIOUS offence, and no-one but someone
fucking a staff member would be given the priviledge.
|
valerie
|
|
response 4 of 393:
|
Jan 6 03:53 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
willcome
|
|
response 5 of 393:
|
Jan 6 05:36 UTC 2004 |
Um, Valerie, you know it's not. That's why people can't do it unless they
abuse their staff powers.
|
willcome
|
|
response 6 of 393:
|
Jan 6 05:37 UTC 2004 |
(Of course, we know for a fact that Valerie IS a liar. She said in a previous
item that she'd restore my polytarp account if I fulfilled certain conditions.
I did, and she never restored the account; no PRAGMATIC harm was done, of
course, because cross eventually restored it for me, but there's, I should
think, harm done in that LIES are INHERENTLY unjust. that's just imho,
though.)
|
ryan
|
|
response 7 of 393:
|
Jan 6 05:56 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
willcome
|
|
response 8 of 393:
|
Jan 6 06:35 UTC 2004 |
Right, especially ignore us when we're trying to prevent abuse of the system.
|
ryan
|
|
response 9 of 393:
|
Jan 6 06:53 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
willcome
|
|
response 10 of 393:
|
Jan 6 08:25 UTC 2004 |
Right, let's let Grex become a place absent of free speech, because you don't
like the a subset of the people complaining about the erosion of free speech.
|
remmers
|
|
response 11 of 393:
|
Jan 6 12:14 UTC 2004 |
#4: "It's longstanding Grex policy that the person who created an item
can delete it."
Really? I don't think so.
|
remmers
|
|
response 12 of 393:
|
Jan 6 12:18 UTC 2004 |
To clarify: People are allowed to purge their own responses, but
not those of other people. At least, that's always been my
understanding.
|
jp2
|
|
response 13 of 393:
|
Jan 6 13:32 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
valerie
|
|
response 14 of 393:
|
Jan 6 13:53 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 15 of 393:
|
Jan 6 14:57 UTC 2004 |
It's never been the case that one user could remove another person's
posts. No without root power. Didn't you notice then when you
first tried to remove the entire items while on as valerie?
Is it possible for you to put the items back (I assume you have them
backed up somewhere) then delete only your responses? I know that
would be a job, but it's the right thing to do. In my opinion.
|
naftee
|
|
response 16 of 393:
|
Jan 6 15:11 UTC 2004 |
re 11 The only time that can happen is if that item has responses only
by the person who created it. Once other people respond to it, that
ability is removed.
As you can see, it required an abuse of Conference Admin priviledges to
delete these items. There were several other alternatives, such as
freezing and retiring them, or censoring her own responses, rather than
the deletion of not only Valerie's posts, but other, innocent users.
Not to mention she hid the fact that she deleted these items. At least
on m-net, this doesn't happen.
|
jp2
|
|
response 17 of 393:
|
Jan 6 15:26 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 18 of 393:
|
Jan 6 15:29 UTC 2004 |
Valerie took advantage of staff powers to do something that the rest of
us wouldn't be allowed to do. I don't think she had any ill intent,
though. I'd have to say I think it's a bit "unfair" but I don't find it
too troubling beyond that. If this is the most inappropriate thing Grex
staff has ever done, we're doing pretty good.
I think valerie at least owes an apology to people who posted. If the
items can be recovered I think they should be replaced. I'm not willing
to call for her to resign, though; as far as I know this hasn't happened
before, so I don't see a pattern of abuse here.
|
other
|
|
response 19 of 393:
|
Jan 6 15:31 UTC 2004 |
Your demand has no force.
If you are serious about it, make a specific proposal in Co-op, and
if the majority of the membership agrees with you (which I seriously
doubt will happen, especially if the removal of the posts by other
users is undone), then Valerie's staff staus would be revoked.
|
other
|
|
response 20 of 393:
|
Jan 6 15:31 UTC 2004 |
gull slipped in
|
mary
|
|
response 21 of 393:
|
Jan 6 15:39 UTC 2004 |
Oh for Christ's sake, naftee, get a clue. Nobody hid anything.
And this wasn't a malicious action. I expect Valerie was very hurt by
what she found on M-net. Why not talk about this in reasonable terms and
see if there is a less drastic "fix" before we bring out the stones.
Maybe we should even see if folks care. Lots of forums seem to function
pretty well with censorship the norm. It's been a long long time since we
looked at how our fairly rigid censorship policy is working for Grex.
I know how I feel about it, but I'd be curious how others see it.
|
jp2
|
|
response 22 of 393:
|
Jan 6 16:08 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 23 of 393:
|
Jan 6 16:20 UTC 2004 |
If you think the welcome line should be changed, make a proposal and
if the majority of the membership agrees with you then it will be
changed.
|
jp2
|
|
response 24 of 393:
|
Jan 6 16:29 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|