|
Grex > Coop13 > #82: Member proposal restricting staff's ability to delete conference items. |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
gull
|
|
Member proposal restricting staff's ability to delete conference items.
| 
Jan 12 16:30 UTC 2004 |
I think, given the chaotic nature of the discussion over item removal,
the best thing to do now is enter a general proposal that will give the
debate something to crystallize around.
Therefore, I make the following proposal:
--- %< ---- cut here ----
Grex staff and conference fairwitnesses shall not remove items from
conferences. The following exceptions are made:
- Fairwitnesses of conferences where item removal is part of clearly
stated conference policy may remove items in accordance with that policy.
- Items that contain information that is unlawful to distribute or
otherwise presents a legal threat to Grex may be removed, IF the less
disruptive method of erasing individual responses is not sufficient.
- Individual members may propose a member vote requesting that a
specific item be deleted. If the vote passes, staff may remove the item.
None of this should be construed to affect an individual user's right to
erase ("scribble" in Picospan) their own responses.
--- %< ---- cut here ----
This proposal is about *future* policy. I don't want to get into the
issue of whether items that have already been deleted should be
restored, and I don't want to debate the actions of specific users here.
I want the discussion to focus on what Grex's policy from this point
forward should be.
|
| 108 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 1 of 108:
|
Jan 12 16:31 UTC 2004 |
The first exception intentionally gives fairwitnesses broad discretion
-- as long as the policy is posted in the conference, so everyone knows
what the rules are ahead of time. I see allowing different conferences
to have different policies as a good thing. It's analogous to U.S.
state governments being able to experiment with their own policies. By
allowing them to experiment we see what works and what doesn't. This
also allows for things like the classified conference, where erasing old
items just makes sense.
I don't expect the second exception to be used often, especially since
in most cases erasing the offending responses should be sufficient.
The third exception is probably unnecessary, since another vote would
override this one anyway, but I thought it would be a good clarification
to have.
|
naftee
|
|
response 2 of 108:
|
Jan 12 16:37 UTC 2004 |
I dunno about myself, but I think the public will have a bird!
|
cross
|
|
response 3 of 108:
|
Jan 12 17:24 UTC 2004 |
I'd be all for it except for that third exception.
|
remmers
|
|
response 4 of 108:
|
Jan 12 17:49 UTC 2004 |
Passage of the third exception may lead me to abandon vote administrating
and seek a new career.
|
gull
|
|
response 5 of 108:
|
Jan 12 18:12 UTC 2004 |
I'd be willing to take it out, but I don't think it actually changes
anything. If later votes override earlier ones, even without the
exception being explicitly laid out anyone can write a member proposal
to have a specific item removed. jep's proposal, in a way, provides the
template for this.
|
gull
|
|
response 6 of 108:
|
Jan 12 18:27 UTC 2004 |
Since the third exception is both a no-op (it allows something that
would be allowed anyway) and is causing controversy, I'm removing it.
The amended proposal:
--- %< ---- cut here ----
Grex staff and conference fairwitnesses shall not remove items from
conferences. The following exceptions are made:
- Fairwitnesses of conferences where item removal is part of clearly
stated conference policy may remove items in accordance with that policy.
- Items that contain information that is unlawful to distribute or
otherwise presents a legal threat to Grex may be removed, IF the less
disruptive method of erasing individual responses is not sufficient.
None of this should be construed to affect an individual user's right to
erase ("scribble" in Picospan) their own responses.
--- %< ---- cut here ----
|
gelinas
|
|
response 7 of 108:
|
Jan 12 18:28 UTC 2004 |
Yes, a later vote will override the current one. I'd prefer, though, that
the third exception not be included: I think it _encourages_ item deletion,
when, from what I've seen to date, the sense of the community is to
_dis_courage such deletions.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 8 of 108:
|
Jan 12 18:30 UTC 2004 |
(I'm so persuasive, gull removed the clause before he could read my
argument. :)
|
jp2
|
|
response 9 of 108:
|
Jan 12 18:31 UTC 2004 |
I believe the Debate Team offers a special medal for that.
|
gull
|
|
response 10 of 108:
|
Jan 12 19:31 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:7: Yeah, I anticipated that objection. I'm not sure if I agree
with it, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to want to derail the
discussion about the proposal in general.
|
richard
|
|
response 11 of 108:
|
Jan 12 20:18 UTC 2004 |
Why not simply say, "fair witnesses shall not delete items from
conferences period. the "kill" command shall be de-permitted for fw's.
Henceforth, only the board's CfAdmin shall have the power to remove items.
And Cfadmin shall only remove items in accordance to staff policy and not
at the request of any individual user"
I don't think every conference need have separate rules, as Gull's
proposal allows for. The conferencing environment as a whole is what is
important here. There ought to be consistency in conference rules for all
conferences. And I don't think fairwitnesses need the "kill" command, not
so long as they can freeze or retire items.
|
aruba
|
|
response 12 of 108:
|
Jan 12 21:42 UTC 2004 |
I think this proposal would encourage a lot of spamming of Grex's
conferences. If I were a spammer, I would be delighted to find a place
where I could post my spam and be assured that it can't be deleted, because
it's against system policy.
|
gull
|
|
response 13 of 108:
|
Jan 12 22:55 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:11: I disagree. For one thing, I think there are conferences
where the 'kill' command makes sense -- for example, classified, where
it makes no sense to keep really old items around. Also, there's no
consistency in conference rules as it is -- some roll over on a regular
basis, some never do, some do irregularly. I'm willing to let
fairwitnesses manage conferences in their own style as long as everyone
knows what the rules are. I see no reason to tie their hands.
If you want to post another initiative to depermit the kill command for
fairwitnesses, feel free. But I'm not going to change this proposal to
include that. I don't feel it's reasonable.
|
keesan
|
|
response 14 of 108:
|
Jan 13 15:31 UTC 2004 |
Re 12, we already get spam posted occasionally in the conferences, but it
usually appears in every conference at the same time. I assume staff could
be requested by a fw to do a global delete.
|
tod
|
|
response 15 of 108:
|
Jan 13 21:12 UTC 2004 |
I'd love to discuss this proposal but I don't think there has been enough
focus on the existing policies to make such recommendations.
|
aruba
|
|
response 16 of 108:
|
Jan 14 03:01 UTC 2004 |
Not if this proposal passes they couldn't. I think the proposal is to
rigid, so I will be voting against it, if it comes to a vote.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 17 of 108:
|
Jan 14 16:45 UTC 2004 |
aruba, I would be curious as to *how* you find the proposal too rigid, given
the 2 remaining exceptions.
|
aruba
|
|
response 18 of 108:
|
Jan 14 17:10 UTC 2004 |
I think I said so already. It would be an invitation to people to spam the
conferences - literally fill up the disk with trash because they know it
can't be deleted. Are you saying you don't know anyone who would do that?
|
carson
|
|
response 19 of 108:
|
Jan 14 17:16 UTC 2004 |
(resp:12 sums it up. resp:16 appears to respond to resp:14 and,
IMO, is a correct assessment of a failing of the proposal.)
[aruba slipped]
|
albaugh
|
|
response 20 of 108:
|
Jan 14 19:23 UTC 2004 |
Re: #18 - Sorry, I do remember you reading that. Well, that should be solved
simply enough - the "standing" policy for *every* conference is that the fw's
can & will kill entire items that are deliberately created for the purpose
of SPAMming the conference. Or, a "progressive" approach might be that the
fw's first *retire* such SPAM items, and after some period of time where it
becomes apparent that no one is contributing to them, then kill them.
|
carson
|
|
response 21 of 108:
|
Jan 14 20:14 UTC 2004 |
(that's usually been the policy. gull's proposal would eliminate that
option. to me, that's a reason to vote "no.")
|
albaugh
|
|
response 22 of 108:
|
Jan 14 20:19 UTC 2004 |
I disagree that gull's proposal eliminates that option. See his exception
re: conference policy.
|
aruba
|
|
response 23 of 108:
|
Jan 15 00:42 UTC 2004 |
Gull's policy would require that every single conference have the exception
you state poste somewhere - otherwise someone could fill up the conference
and the fairwitness would have no recourse.
|
gull
|
|
response 24 of 108:
|
Jan 15 01:49 UTC 2004 |
I don't think spamming conferences has been that big a problem. I've
only seen a handful of incidents of it in the entire time I've been
here, and in most of them nothing was done anyway. To the extent it is
a problem, retiring the offending items would solve it.
I don't really see any evidence that there are legions of spammers out
there just waiting to pounce when we revise our item-removal policy.
|