|
|
| Author |
Message |
willcome
|
|
Petition
| 
Jan 7 11:53 UTC 2004 |
In this item, I'm formally petitioning Grex's staff to delete every item I've
ever posted, starting to this one. I've decided that they represent a
bizzarre doppelganger of my self, and I feel very uncomfortable with them.
To aid this endevour, I will post an approximate list of all the usernames
I've used:
polytarp
dah
plongeur
leongold
willcome
Thanks!
|
| 170 responses total. |
gelinas
|
|
response 1 of 170:
|
Jan 7 13:20 UTC 2004 |
If staff were to do this, the request would have to come from the
originating account, and would have to include the conference and item
number. No one on staff has the time to hunt down "every item ever posted."
Further, they don't have time to confirm that the person currently using
a particular loginid is the person who was using that loginid when the
entry was created.
Which is why I think the right of removal should be implemented within
the capabilities of individual users.
|
naftee
|
|
response 2 of 170:
|
Jan 7 13:56 UTC 2004 |
So you don't care if your response #1, in this conference, which contains your
ideas, etc. , is removed by anyone at anytime.
|
naftee
|
|
response 3 of 170:
|
Jan 7 13:57 UTC 2004 |
That's shocking.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 4 of 170:
|
Jan 7 16:43 UTC 2004 |
Re. 1: Why don't you start with this item?
|
ryan
|
|
response 5 of 170:
|
Jan 7 17:13 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 6 of 170:
|
Jan 7 17:25 UTC 2004 |
I disagree, Ryan. There's an important policy issue at stake here.
If naftee hadn't raised the issue he did in Item 68, I probably would
have, had I found out about the situation.
|
sholmes
|
|
response 7 of 170:
|
Jan 7 17:29 UTC 2004 |
I stand by my post long time back .. clear cut rules for any cases you can
think of now . and new ones as the case arises.
|
carson
|
|
response 8 of 170:
|
Jan 7 17:38 UTC 2004 |
(didn't Selena want to have all of her items and responses scribbled at
one point? how did that work out for her?)
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 9 of 170:
|
Jan 7 18:22 UTC 2004 |
As for multiple logins. What if it's a well known user who is widely
known to use more than one login, and they lose access to one. And
they want all their posts deleted? What do you do then? Do you comply
just because you know they're telling the truth and you like them?
You allow censorship now, you're going to get into worse later.
|
gull
|
|
response 10 of 170:
|
Jan 7 18:42 UTC 2004 |
It would seem that valerie's claim that anyone can have their items
removed by staff is incorrect, since I've seen at least two people ask
for it now and neither of them has gotten a positive response. Thus I
have to conclude that valerie exercised a privilage not available to the
rest of us.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 11 of 170:
|
Jan 7 19:06 UTC 2004 |
She exercised a privilege *I* thought was available to everyone.
The conditions in Response 1 above are to ensure that the original author
and, therefore, legitimate owner (in my view) of the item was making
the request. And to limit the work-load to something manageable, of course.
The ensuing discussion has made plain to me that there is no clear course
of action for a staff member to follow. Until there is, I won't be acting
on the requests.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 12 of 170:
|
Jan 7 19:32 UTC 2004 |
She exercised a privilege that even she knew was not available to
everyone. She tried it as a normal user, didn't work. She then
proceeded to try it as root.
And legitimate owner in staff's view only? What if that person was
widely known to have multiple ids, but staff wasn't participating in
enough conferences to figure that out. Hypothetical situation. I know.
|
ryan
|
|
response 13 of 170:
|
Jan 7 19:38 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cross
|
|
response 14 of 170:
|
Jan 7 19:39 UTC 2004 |
Regarding #11; Speech in a forum such as this simply cannot be owned by
one individual. The idea of a person `owning' an item is foreign to me,
and I just don't see where you're coming from, Joe. It might help if
you could explain your rationale, though.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 15 of 170:
|
Jan 7 19:41 UTC 2004 |
Re 13>So you're saying we give staff members special privileges to
keep them happy and interested enough in working on grex?
As for the "toads" harrassing staff to quit, in this case, they were
not the ones who led staff to delete items to which other people had
responded.
|
ryan
|
|
response 16 of 170:
|
Jan 7 19:53 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cross
|
|
response 17 of 170:
|
Jan 7 19:57 UTC 2004 |
Hey, I don't like some of those toads, I admit it, but in this case,
they really are on to something. At least, _I_ think they are.
Sometimes the true measure of the person is whether they can bring
themselves to agree with someone they really don't like, just because
that person is right.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 18 of 170:
|
Jan 7 20:04 UTC 2004 |
Ryan, I don't see what you suggest is happenning - singling out
staffers and harrassing them so they quit. The only resignors I'm
aware of were cross and valerie. In both cases, the reasons for
resigning seem to be different, irrelevant to what the canadian posse
do or don't do. Heck cross even returned as a staffer (and very
thankful we are :) )
|
albaugh
|
|
response 19 of 170:
|
Jan 7 20:20 UTC 2004 |
The request in #0 should first be taken up with the fw's of the confernces
in which the items were posted.
Of course, soon the fw's are going to (should be) asking for a broader,
clearer grex policy about when they should(n't) be killing entire items,
either on their own or in response to an item-enterer's request.
|
aruba
|
|
response 20 of 170:
|
Jan 7 20:27 UTC 2004 |
I think Ryan has a good point in #13. I think that there are consequences
for constant harrassment of staff, and if Dan and Valerie are the only ones
you've seen act dramatically about it, that doesn't mean it doesn't affect
the rest of us. I find myself wondering, constantly, why I spend so much
time enabling people who really deserve to be ignored. Eventually, it will
probably get to me.
Let me say that another way. I think a number of Grexers choose to
participate here because they feel they can be assholes without any
consequences. (Why they enjoy being assholes, I don't know, but it's
undeniably the case.) But there *are* consequences, and ultimately, such
behavior will likely kill Grex, because only other people of like mind
will want to participate, and no one will want to administer a place whose
purpose has become the promotion of such behavior. The death of Grex is
also, perhaps, what some people want - another desire I've never
understood.
In case anyone hasn't noticed, we have a big shortage of staff already.
That's why we were able to buy a new machine, but so far haven't been able
to get it in service. THere has been plenty of finger pointing, but the
bottom line is that a lot of staff members don't feel as compelled to
serve Grex as they did in the old days. I think the fact that such
service results in being abused has a lot to do with it.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 21 of 170:
|
Jan 7 20:58 UTC 2004 |
I understand that sentiment Mark. I agree that there are assholes out
there who seem to be making it harder and harder for staff to want to
continue serving grex. And I see your point that staff could be
straining under "attacks" as they perceive it. I guess I find it hard
to understand why what a couple of boys insist on posting over and
over again would really affect staff's morale, especially when it's
open knowledge that they're alone in their views. Maybe there's
something there that I don't see.
The case in point is a rare occasion when people have spoken up,
because believe it or not, the Canadians and jp2 have a point. (Though
Jamie has been yelling so much, he's given me a headache)
This also brings me to another point I've been trying to make. Grexers
seem to be happy with the status quo. They know each other, they
understand what other grexers are saying and the like interacting with
them. Nice. So nice, that they've neglected to really look to
expanding participation. So when a couple of assholes comes along, and
attracts a couple more, and they get in a couple more, eventually you
are going to be overrun by them. It's all very well to be happy with
your little world, but unless you do something about expanding, pretty
soon you're going to be run out. I know, we've discussed this before.
|
naftee
|
|
response 22 of 170:
|
Jan 7 21:07 UTC 2004 |
re 6 I dunno, the reference that the items were deleted was buried deep inside
the m-net agora conference.
Oh wait, you're staff. Never mind. THEY were informed.
re 20 There is a difference between harassment and genuine concern about the
situation of a GreX policy or staffer. If you can't tell the difference,
please avoid calling people assholes.
|
aruba
|
|
response 23 of 170:
|
Jan 7 21:18 UTC 2004 |
It makes it very hard to attract new people to Grex when the general flavor
of the conversation is nastiness. I find it really hard to recommend Grex
to people for that reason.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 24 of 170:
|
Jan 7 21:33 UTC 2004 |
But Mark, the general flavor isn't that. At least I don't see it that
way. We have a couple of annoying characters (actually I can think of
many, many more annoying characters, but thats what grex is all about -
you take the good, you take the bad), but we have many, many more
that are very nice people, and that are enjoyable to interact with.
We're not marketing them well enough, and we let a couple of kids make
us feel like the system is going to the dogs. /shrug
|