|
Grex > Coop13 > #76: member initiative: do not restore two items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 357 responses total. |
naftee
|
|
response 113 of 357:
| 
Jan 13 01:56 UTC 2004 |
jep, seeing as those items were in old agora conferences (as opposed
to Valerie's, which was in the femme cf) I think they'd be a lot
harder to find from the average user than Valerie's baby diary items.
For instance, a user could easily stumble across the femme cf and
browse the items, but wouldn't necessarily go looking under cobwebs to
find obscure items such as the ones you deleted. Ergo, you seem to
have been a little overly paranoid.
|
jep
|
|
response 114 of 357:
|
Jan 13 02:28 UTC 2004 |
re resp:110: Joe, I don't care to buy Grex's affection, not at that
price. If you have to have me act against myself so you can get your
way, in order for you to feel good about me, then you'll have to feel
bad about me. Second, if the items are restored, there'll be a loss
of goodwill from me toward Grex and toward those whom I believe have
voted to put them back on-line.
re resp:111: There is no reason to involve a lawyer. None. And
neither you nor I can afford the bill in any case.
re resp:112: I don't see a mechanism for doing it. I don't see how it
gets done without the items being public, meaning the responses will
never really be deleted. They'll be re-posted by someone. Look
through this item and the other ones and tell me I'm wrong about that.
If my proposal fails, then if it appears likely the items will be put
back on-line, I will press at that time for people to authorize their
responses be removed first.
The items are deleted now. That's a good thing. It doesn't hurt
anyone. *No one had visited those items in a year*. Maybe no one
ever would have. I don't know that, but I know they'd be visited now,
as the only items ever deleted and then brought back; as objects of
curiosity; in order to make attacks against me by people who can't
stand me because I asked for them to be deleted.
Putting them on-line now is not undoing an action. It's taking a new
action which is very hostile toward me. It would be an attack. The
items are causing no harm at all now. The only way they won't cause
further harm is if they're left alone, just as they are. They're
gone. Leave them alone.
re resp:113: Uh huh. Every Grexer will know how to get them.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 115 of 357:
|
Jan 13 03:19 UTC 2004 |
"Every Grexer will know how to get them."
re resp:113 It's a possibility... yes. I think that it would be
rather sad and pathetic if someone did choose to go searching for the
items just to repost them as you said. Time could be spent better
elsewhere, in my opinion. I know there is no guarantee that it can't
happen. I would believe it would be remote, although in the heat of
all this debate it seems more likely in your eyes.
I perceive you are only trying to defend and preserve the sanity and
well-being of yourself and your family. But as best as I can tell,
you went about it in ways that are viewed as unethical by much of this
community. Unfortunately, one of the parties involved also did
something that much of this community considers unethical as well.
Would that your controversies could be separate-- but I don't see that
happening with the way things are going.
I don't know. I've seen a lot of emotions and opinions sloshed
around. What is ultimately decided will redefine Grex in years to
come, I'm sure. I will say it until I'm blue in the face... a lot of
this does say that folks need to very carefully consider what they put
out on the Net... not all places are secure and not all places let you
retract your information so easily. Especially if you consider that
others might have it stashed somewhere. I'm sure people will still be
set in their opinions for quite some time... good luck whatever
happens.
|
gull
|
|
response 116 of 357:
|
Jan 13 03:40 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:115: "I think that it would be rather sad and pathetic if
someone did choose to go searching for the items just to repost them as
you said."
If you've been around here for long, you know there are some sad and
pathetic people here. Or at least ones that like to make trouble and
hurt other people.
"What is ultimately decided will redefine Grex in years to come, I'm
sure."
No, I don't think so. What happens to jep's items is a minor issue to
Grex at this point and will be pretty quickly forgotten. I think
there's an astounding lack of perspective about that.
What's decided as far as Grex's policy towards future deletion requests
is what may or may not redefine Grex.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 117 of 357:
|
Jan 13 04:15 UTC 2004 |
yep, sad and pathetic people. 'twas my point but you know.
"What's decided as far as Grex's policy towards future deletion
requests is what may or may not redefine Grex." That is what I meant--
sorry if that was unclear. I had thought that was apparent.
|
naftee
|
|
response 118 of 357:
|
Jan 13 04:33 UTC 2004 |
Wait, I thought he was primarily worried about his wife finding them...
How versed is his wife in the workings of GreXs conferencing system/UNIX?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 119 of 357:
|
Jan 13 04:35 UTC 2004 |
It was clear to me. Grex has at least three separate things to decide.
Actually four if you want to get into the issue of how to police staff and
users who abuse the system.
Jep says " And neither you nor I can afford the bill in any case"
referring to the cost of an attorney to vet his items with his posts
reviewed. He also says there is no need for a lawyer which leads me to
believe all the breast-beating about liabilities is a red herring. I'm
guessing it's something as simple as jep realizing he wasn't comfortable
letting his son get a grex account under the old status quo. That's the
only explanation that even remotely explains his paranoia if he is to be
beleived this isn't about custody concerns.
In any case, Grex has paid a very dear cost regardles of jep's real
reasons and regardless of whether or not he shares his real reasons for
what he did. Given the cost to Grex, though, I think it is highly
appropriate that jep pay a cost as well. If he dontates something like
$500 to Grex I would accept that as his apology and compensation for the
harm he caused. And of course that would in no way be a precedent to allow
future item deletions.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 120 of 357:
|
Jan 13 04:35 UTC 2004 |
<naftee snuck>
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 121 of 357:
|
Jan 13 10:10 UTC 2004 |
Ok, we're apparently on a similar vibe.
|
jp2
|
|
response 122 of 357:
|
Jan 13 11:33 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
willcome
|
|
response 123 of 357:
|
Jan 13 11:40 UTC 2004 |
Millionaire.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 124 of 357:
|
Jan 13 13:19 UTC 2004 |
Re #119: John didn't delete the items, and he was apparently still deciding
whether he wanted them removed when Valerie made the choice for
him. If you're going to suggest that someone needs to pay money
for them to stay deleted, it should be the person who abused staff
powers and made the actual decision.
Of course, this could quickly get ludicrous. What if I offer
$1500 to have valerie's items restored in full, and an additional
$500/month to have them put at the beginning of every agora.cf
for the next five years?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 125 of 357:
|
Jan 13 14:00 UTC 2004 |
As I said, I do not want to establish a precedent in terms of paying for a
giving outcome that otherwise violates policy. What I am saying is that if
the majority of grex is predisposed to make a *one time only* exception, it
should make clear that the cost of such extreme action should be shared by
jep. Hence my suggestion.
|
gull
|
|
response 126 of 357:
|
Jan 13 14:06 UTC 2004 |
Since there seems to be a lot of anger directed at jep in this item, I
want to take a moment to say that while I don't think his actions were
appropriate, I don't believe for a moment that he intended to damage
Grex with them. It troubles me that some people seem more interested in
figuring out how to punish jep than in how to define what our policy on
item deletion should be.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 127 of 357:
|
Jan 13 14:12 UTC 2004 |
I am all for defining policy. I do not see myself as seeking to "punish" jep.
YMMV. I do think he should bear a cost that in some way compensates grex for
the harm caused.
|
jp2
|
|
response 128 of 357:
|
Jan 13 14:27 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 129 of 357:
|
Jan 13 14:31 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:127: So what, in dollars, do you feel was the cost to Grex?
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 130 of 357:
|
Jan 13 14:39 UTC 2004 |
I would prefer that jep's items be restored with his posts, my posts, slynne's
posts, and the posts of everyone else who asks being deleted before they are
restored. Without copies being sent around.
That would make me feel good, because we would have tried to "fix" an abuse
of staff power and keep Grex closer to how it would have been if this had
never happened.
HOWEVER I don't believe that this fix would "put the genii back in the bottle"
as someone said. I think more harm will be done to the civility of Grex and
the tone of discourse by that action, than harm will be done to "free speech"
if we -don't" restore them.
I think janc is on the right track when he says that we can encapsulate this
special circumstance, and still have a clear policy that says it can't be done
again in the future.
|
jp2
|
|
response 131 of 357:
|
Jan 13 14:43 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 132 of 357:
|
Jan 13 14:53 UTC 2004 |
I think this is more like a loophole in a law. You change the law to
close the loophole. You don't go back and try to undo everything that
happened because of the loophole, and argue that unless you're
successful the loophole can't be closed.
|
jp2
|
|
response 133 of 357:
|
Jan 13 14:55 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 134 of 357:
|
Jan 13 14:57 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 135 of 357:
|
Jan 13 15:40 UTC 2004 |
re resp:124: No, I was very directly clear, emphatically so, with more
than one e-mail message, that I wanted the items deleted. (See
resp:105)
Let there be no doubt about it now, either, I want them to remain
deleted, just as they are now.
re resp:127: I'll cheeerfully pay every penny that can be proven to be
lost to Grex because these items were deleted. I'm not going to pay
legal expenses if some moron sues, though. If there's a cost to Grex
for deleting my items, I'll certainly pay for that.
I have no idea what such a cost could be. I'll take aruba's word for
it, though. If he says I cost Grex money, I'll make arrangements with
him to cover that cost.
|
willcome
|
|
response 136 of 357:
|
Jan 13 16:54 UTC 2004 |
Re. 145: but he said LIKE a loophole.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 137 of 357:
|
Jan 13 17:01 UTC 2004 |
I am reminded of an emotionally abusive tactic I have seen used to control
people: invoking the rule "You can't change your mind".
From "When I Say No, I Feel Guilty", M. J. Smith, copyright 1975:
But if you do change your mind, other people may resist your new choice by
manipulation based on any of the childish beliefs we have seen, the most
common of which goes something like this: 'You should not change your mind
after you have committed yourself. If you change your mind, something is
wrong. You should justify your new choince or admit that you were in error.
If you are in error, you have shown that you are irresponsible, likely to be
wrong again, cause problems. Therefore you are nto capable of making
decisions by yourself.'
....
To be in touch with reality, to promote our own well-eing and happiness, we
have to accept the possibility that changes our minds is healthy and normal."
Some of the responses here are harking back to a policy change the membership
voted on previously: You do have the right to expurgate and scribble
responses in a way that makes them no longer available. Even if you knew at
the time that posting on the Internet was "public" you -can- change your mind.
And if you responded to an idea in a way that makes you humiliated when the
original idea is scribbled, then I suggest you think carefully before you
respond in that fashion. And also go back and scribble your own responses
that now humiliate you.
Grex is a community. We strive to create a community and some of us are very
upset when whatever vision of the Grex Community that we hold is challenged.
Two deeply held community values are in conflict here: The warm fuzzy
belongingness value that we try to create by things like the Saturday Walk
and Lunch, and the free-speech-to-the-death value that many of us also
espouse. Usually they don't conflict.
When someone has healed, matured, or otherwise come to view old thoughts,
beliefs and behaviors in a different light, it seems peculiar to say to them
"we don't care if you are trying to make amends, we will force you to remain
in the time-warp of who you used to be".
When two important values are in conflict, it is not necessary to say "We must
forever place one of these values in higher priority than the other."
We can say, by leaving jep's two items deleted, "Well, we wouldn't have done
it that way if we'd thought about it before, and we sure won't ever do it that
way again, but the value to being a supportive community suggests the solution
of leaving them deleted".
Or we can say "The value of my responses being forever readable outweighs
jep's needs in this instance, and I insist that my words be put back on public
view".
In any event this community must decide _in_this_instance_only_ how to handle
the situation. Because even a community has the right to change it's mind.
|