|
Grex > Coop13 > #76: member initiative: do not restore two items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
jep
|
|
member initiative: do not restore two items
| 
Jan 9 19:39 UTC 2004 |
I wish to make a user proposal that my two items recently deleted by
loginid valerie not be restored. The two items were:
agora40, item 63
agora41, item 11
|
| 357 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 1 of 357:
|
Jan 9 19:46 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
willcome
|
|
response 2 of 357:
|
Jan 9 19:53 UTC 2004 |
I vote no.
|
jep
|
|
response 3 of 357:
|
Jan 9 19:54 UTC 2004 |
I wish to ask that these items not be restored for the following
reasons:
1) They were entered during a time of great stress and despair. During
that time, I was diagnosed as undergoing major depression, and received
presciption medication as well as therapeutic treatment for my illness.
2) The material I entered during that time was of a highly personal
nature. I don't believe I would have entered it if I had been in
my "right mind". I just didn't care then that I could be causing a
future problem for myself. I care now.
3) Some of the material could potentially be used to harm both myself
and my young son.
4) The material contained within them was focused on me, and my own
personal problems, and had very little if any relevance to anyone else.
5) The items are currently deleted from the system. They were unused
for a period of over a year. I believe they were not being read by
anyone, and am certain they had not been responded to for over a year.
I don't believe there is any compelling reason for these items to be
restored.
6) The items were deleted by my request, with no intention to harm
anyone else because of having them removed. I do not believe anyone
*has* been harmed because of their removal.
7) The items would garner an unusual amount of interest if restored
now, because of circumstances which have nothing to do with the intent
or current content of the items. People who read the items now would
be doing so because they'd been deleted and thus become part of a
controversy, not because of any desire to help me through my problems
of a couple of years ago.
I appreciate the assistance of the members of Grex in gaining
acceptance for this proposal. Thank you very much.
|
keesan
|
|
response 4 of 357:
|
Jan 9 20:00 UTC 2004 |
You have my permission to leave them deleted, but I don't think you should
be embarrassed about your psychological problems caused by the stress of
divorce. It was really educational for the rest of us when you shared them
with us and I at least respect you for being able to do so.
|
aruba
|
|
response 5 of 357:
|
Jan 9 20:10 UTC 2004 |
I don't think it's true at all that the items had no relevance to other
people, John. But I have no heart to fight you on this.
|
jp2
|
|
response 6 of 357:
|
Jan 9 20:14 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 7 of 357:
|
Jan 9 20:24 UTC 2004 |
I think both this proposal and the previous one should be put on hold
until Grex has an actual policy about whether people can delete their
own items. I think it's wrong to try to short-circuit the policy
decision this way.
Life does not come with a rewind-erase button. Get used to it.
|
richard
|
|
response 8 of 357:
|
Jan 9 20:24 UTC 2004 |
I disagree that those items should not be restored. Every time items get mass
deleted, posts get mass deleted .etc, you are essentially re-writing and
revising grex's history. Grex has been like a great experiment, and
preserving what it was, and what it has become, is important. This is why
I don't like Valerie mass deleting all her posts. In how many old items is
she taking other people's comments out of context by removing her posts to
which they were replying. Same thing with JEP removing his posts. This
is affecting not just their posts, but to the posts of those who
participated in those items.
Suppose two users have a heated argument in an item, and then one of the
users removes all their posts. Now anybody reading that item will only
see the other user's posts, and not have the context of the whole
discussion, and that other user could look bad. Is that fair to the other
user? Does one user have the right to tear large holes in an item and
potentially embarrass other users who posted in that item in the process?
|
flem
|
|
response 9 of 357:
|
Jan 9 20:31 UTC 2004 |
I'm gonna have to vote to restore these items if the proposal comes up.
I think that preventing the existence of a precedent for deleting other
people's writing is more important to Grex than preventing the narrow
risk that Jep might be embarrassed by something written by someone else
in those items. Note that if these items are to be restored, we should
of course make sure to remove jep's responses first if that's what he
wants.
|
richard
|
|
response 10 of 357:
|
Jan 9 20:35 UTC 2004 |
As I posted in previous item, I think that a user should only be able to
scribble their items, and thereby potentially take other users comments in
those items out of context, if it is reasonable to think that those other
users are still around and would have the opportunity to clarify their
comments. Grex should fully protect anything posted more than a year ago as
"historical" and disallow scribbling of responses that old or older. When
people post to grex, they have the right to assume that anything they post
won't be taken out of context years down the line by some user who suddenly
goes back and scribbles and puts holes in old items.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 11 of 357:
|
Jan 9 20:37 UTC 2004 |
Unfortunately, that aspect was decided on when they decided to do away
with the scribble log.
jep, if your items are restored, and only your posts are deleted,
would this serve your purpose? (I never really read those items
through, so I wouldn't know.) What if we could get people who entered
stuff that made obvious responses to what you said to delete their
posts? I know this would take time, but I think it could be done. Most
people who responded really cared about you, and I don't see them not
doing this if it makes you feel better.
I hate to see your items becoming the reason for allowing other users
to delete items they've entered. We've already seen a huge loss to the
system in terms of mass-scribbles, and it would be a shame to see any
more.
|
other
|
|
response 12 of 357:
|
Jan 9 20:44 UTC 2004 |
In a reversal of my position on the publicly readable scribble log
(due to copyright concerns primarily), I'll say this:
Under absolutely no circumstances should posts which were removed by
their proper owners be restored, even in the process of restoring
comments made by others in response to or about those removed posts.
Also, if any posts not made by the users who removed them or
requested their removal are restored, any quotes of a full sentence
or more from the properly removed text should also not be restored,
but should be replaced by something along the lines of:
[quotation removed by request of original owner/poster]
Richard, your notion of "fairness" is remarkable only for its
convoluted and self-serving nature.
|
richard
|
|
response 13 of 357:
|
Jan 9 20:51 UTC 2004 |
bullshit other, fairness to one isn't fairness to all, and if I or any other
user post in a conference, we have the right to think that if we leave the
conf or the board, that our comments won't be later taken out of context.
That items won't be cut up. If the items are new and the user(s) affected
are still around, thats not an issue. But if a period of time has passed,
and some or most of the users who posted in that item are no longer around,
it is not fair for that item to be retroactively cut up. Why can't the
scribble command be limited so it can't be used on posts over a year old?
|