response 112 of 186:

Dec 3 22:41 UTC 2003

Well, we're talking about reality.  At least, most of us are.

response 114 of 186:

Dec 3 23:59 UTC 2003

Re 108> It's more like you have no tolerance for anyone who disagrees or
brings up arguments. Sure Jamie has argued about a lot of things, some of them
a waste of time. But he's never vandalised bbs, and I use that term lightly
(vandalism is willcome's "spam" all over agora in my book). All he's done is
argue and been not-so-deferential to the grexers.

This whole election campaign has proved one thing. You guys are never going
to get over the fact that someone dared to question policy. A lot of the posts
in this campaign and the other related items smack of personal dislike rather
than actual flaws. You might think that you guys are winning, but really you
are jsut running around in circles agreeing with each other, rather than
looking at facts. Whatever, I guess the majority wins here.

And Jamie, I'm not sure whether you are taking this election seriously. I
personally believe that you could be a great addition, especially when it
comes to making grex more visible (whatever visibility it can get in this day
and age) and possibly getting more members and contributions. you may be able
to bring about some necessary change in the way Grex is governed also. But
one thing you haven't learnt is that more elections are won through diplomacy
and tact rather than on legalities (or stuffing the ballot-box) And you don't
have that. If you plan to get on teh board of any organizatrion you bet you
need to get the people to like you, and maybe even respect you. And you've
done neither here. Maybe just for that you do deserve to lose. Which is a
shame, because I would like to see you on board.

And don't even get me started on the hypocricy. A few weeks ago a staffer was
rapped on the knuckles for locking out an account of a person who was causing
actual trouble deliberately, with no good intentions. Apparently he was too
"harsh" in punishment. Yet, at this point you people won't bat an eye when
Jamie's account gets locked out, never mind that it wasn't an act of
maliciousness. 

I've had my say. You may go back to living in your little grex world and Jamie
in his world where he wins an election on a technicality.

response 116 of 186:

Dec 4 00:30 UTC 2003

Re #114: Sapna: who do you mean when you say "you guys"?

response 118 of 186:

Dec 4 00:39 UTC 2003

I think she can speak for herself.

response 120 of 186:

Dec 4 01:20 UTC 2003

There is more to grex than the conference system.  Making the system unusable,
as a user has reported jp2 did, is abuse of grex.

response 122 of 186:

Dec 4 01:28 UTC 2003

I meant a majority of the "old school grex" that are still around. You may
pretend you want new blood and new users and new members. but really, you
aren't willing to change. You get your backs up when something is questioned,
make excuses about why things are the way they are, and when no excuse is
available try to pass it off (and successfully so) because the person who
brought it up isn't a well-liked person. It's almost as if all of you are hand
in glove with each other.

I realise that this isn't how all the old schoolers feel. I've seen a few out
there that actually seem to show some sense of fairness. So maybe there is
hope. But most of them seem to be uncomfortable when anyone else apart from
their clique suggest something or seem to want to break into their little
circle.

Maybe it is just the way I (and a few others) perceive the situation to be.
But if this is the perception we have, maybe there is a problem? Maybe not
in the fact that a problem actually exists but in how people have been
presenting their views. Again you may not agree. Fine. It is your system. run
it the way you think fit.

response 124 of 186:

Dec 4 02:08 UTC 2003

See, aruba?  Told you so. 

Whore.

response 126 of 186:

Dec 4 02:28 UTC 2003

Re 122:  I don't think you've seen a regular argument here before.  We've had
them, including some really serious ones like anonymous web reading of the
conferences.  The difference between then and now is that there weren't people
spamming users.s

response 128 of 186:

Dec 4 07:49 UTC 2003

Speaking as a former board member, former staff member, and occasional lurker
on the staff mailing list, I'm disapointed about how this was handled. 
Jamie's aproach to senidng out the mail was probably wrong, but this was the
case of a known reasonable person who presumably could have been talked to,
rather than jumped on like a vandal.  In fairness to the staff members
involved, this does appear to have been largely a case of miscommunication.

I do hope Jamie gets elected, although I'm not a member at the moment and thus
can't vote for him.  I don't agree with Jamie on a lot of stuff, but I think
he would bring a different perspective to the board that would be quite
useful.

I'm also particularly mistified about the venom with which Eric (other) has
been going after Jamie and others who he disagrees with.  Eric used to be
quite a nice guy, so I'm not sure what's changed in the last few years.  At
this point, whenever I read Eric's comments I find myself really wishing I
hadn't.

response 130 of 186:

Dec 4 12:54 UTC 2003

Re 128> Well put. I agree completely.

As for voting in this election, you can pay up for three months and cast your
vote, if that's what you want to do.

response 132 of 186:

Dec 4 14:29 UTC 2003

Thanks for sharing the data, Jamie.

Sapna - the reason I asked who you were referring to is that I've seen us
go down this road before, where people rail about "what Grex thinks" and
how the establishment is conspiring to keep down new ideas.  It's the
beginning of the end of a constructive discussion.

Personally, I'm not conspiring with anyone.  I just say what I think.  So
if you've got a problem with what I say, talk to me.  And if you've got a
problem with what Eric says, talk to Eric.  I can't speak for Eric and he
can't speak for me.

response 134 of 186:

Dec 4 14:44 UTC 2003

I think perhaps I've simply become less interested in burying the 
intense distaste I have for people who come into a nice place and 
shit all over it for their own entertainment.  Aside from that, I 
have been guilty of making a few pointed remarks about the style of 
certain perople's comments which, though I do not regret making 
them, would perhaps have been best left unsaid.  

Steve, I'm honestly regretful that you feel that way about my 
comments.  I haven't had a lot of actual substance to say on Grex in 
a while, but if I take the trouble to think about an issue and to 
actually post my collected thoughts, I'd like them to be considered 
a reasonable contribution to the discussion at hand.

Sapna, I have to say I am really at a loss as to how you could 
arrive at the position you represent above.  I think it must come 
from a combination or arriving on Grex during a period when many 
members felt the system was under assault by an onslaught of people 
who had no interest in what Grex had been, but only in what they 
could turn it into.  This is not inherently a problem, mind you, but 
it definitely does create a sense of conflict in those users whose 
attraction to Grex lay mainly in its character before that time.  
There are a lot of people who put a lot of time, effort and money 
into creating a place which served a specific purpose, but did it in 
such a way that a concerted effort by a few people without respect 
for the place and its past could change it into something else.

I suppose that is the fatal flaw in any democratic experiment.  The 
very principles on which it is built make and keep it susceptible to 
the tyranny of those who have the will to manipulate the system.

Put simply, Grex is experiencing a conflict of cultures, and the 
people who birthed and raised Grex are trying to preserve the old 
culture because that culture is why those people are here.  
Ultimately, if that culture changes enough, Grex will become 
something else, and those people will be forced to decide whether 
they have any reason to remain a part of it.  There is nothing 
undemocratic in all this, and I think that the staff have done an 
extremely admirable job of adhering to their principles in the face 
of this challenge.  But the staff is human, and each one has his or 
her own way of doing their job, and sometimes this creates the 
appearance of inconsistency.  For example, if I had anything to say 
about it individually, I would never have allowed dah/naftee/
willcome/polytarp/whatever the fuck it is to remain unlocked.  I 
regret the loss of cross as a staffer, but he obviously did not have 
the ability to separate himself from the job he was performing.

With regard to jp2, well, I would have locked the account 
immediately as STeve did not -- for legitimate reasons of his own.  

Locking accounts is primarily a symbolic punishment, as has I'm sure 
been plainly demonstrated, but as such, the reversal of it is 
equally symbolic.  I oppose the unlocking of an account simply on 
the basis that someone who should have known better and has no 
excuse in the world good enough, despite the best of intentions, 
says they're sorry and won't do it again.  I have no problem 
allowing people a second chance, but the price of intentionally 
abusing the system is the loss of the account.  If someone persists 
in the abuse through creation of multiple accounts then the IP is 
locked out, and if they still persist then their ISP is contacted 
and other measures are taken as necessary and available.  That's 
just how we protect ourselves.  If we don't do it, Grex shuts down, 
period.

I think I've said my piece for now.  I hope I've said some things 
that were both true and previously felt but unspoken, because they 
should be said.  Where we go from here is what gets interesting.

response 136 of 186:

Dec 4 14:52 UTC 2003

Other slipped in.