|
Grex > Oldcoop > #75: Member Initative: Restore the Murdered Items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 424 responses total. |
jep
|
|
response 114 of 424:
| 
Jan 13 01:05 UTC 2004 |
re resp:113: My lawyer doesn't even use e-mail. Explaining what a
conferencing system is should probably be doable in an hour. I
estimate reviewing the responses ought to be doable in 8 more hours.
Probably.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 115 of 424:
|
Jan 13 01:14 UTC 2004 |
Let me also make it clear that I don't think the responses of other people
are dangerous to John, or that John had anything approaching a right to have
them removed. I will not be cited as a supporter of this action. When I
talked to him about it in the past, I was speaking about his own responses.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 116 of 424:
|
Jan 13 01:20 UTC 2004 |
Re #114: You don't have to use the same lawyer. There are plenty who use
email and know what a bbs is. There are also plenty who do not charge $200
an hour. In any case, since you are the one requesting such drastic
action, I can't get too worked up about the cost. Again what we are
getting, at least in my opinion, are excuses and insufficient reasons to
justify the extreme action you are requesting
|
naftee
|
|
response 117 of 424:
|
Jan 13 02:04 UTC 2004 |
I agree with cyklone. Hire a new lawyer who actually knows something.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 118 of 424:
|
Jan 13 03:40 UTC 2004 |
What useful purpose would restoring the response, minus JEP's comments, serve?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 119 of 424:
|
Jan 13 04:23 UTC 2004 |
The same purpose that would be served if an addict wrote an item that
received lots of responses about addiction and recovery. Jep himself said
he wished there was an item like his already in existence that he could've
read during his divorce.
There is a considerable benefit to keeping such items readable. Ya'll want
to do the easy or nice thing rather than the principled or rational thing,
however.
|
jep
|
|
response 120 of 424:
|
Jan 13 04:37 UTC 2004 |
It's so easy to be principled at the expense of someone else.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 121 of 424:
|
Jan 13 04:40 UTC 2004 |
Its also very easy to lose your principles when you have to apply them to
yourself.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 122 of 424:
|
Jan 13 04:47 UTC 2004 |
I don't consider restoring the item, even without JEP's comments, "principled"
or "rational".
|
cyklone
|
|
response 123 of 424:
|
Jan 13 04:52 UTC 2004 |
I guess that doesn't speak well for you then if you can't see that other
people's posts have indpendent value above and beyond the person who
initially inspired them.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 124 of 424:
|
Jan 13 04:53 UTC 2004 |
Someone took an action they had no right to take. That action resulted in
the removal of text other people allegedly had control over. Restoring the
status quo before the illegitimate action *is* a rational remedy. It's
undoing the illicit act. That may not be a remedy you agree with, but it's
rational.
"Principled" is a value judgement about which reasonable people can disagree,
so I don't think there's any point in our arguing about it. I think that
restoring the item -- with jep's text, which is the only part of it he ever
owned, removed -- is principled. You may not.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 125 of 424:
|
Jan 13 04:58 UTC 2004 |
Cyklone slipped.
But whatever. In a sense, John was right when he said the actions could set
a precedent. The precedent, if there is one, will be that if you want an item
removed, and you can either find a staff member willing to sacrifice their
staff position, or you are a staff member, you can do it. And the items
will stay deleted, in order to protect your "rights".
|
gelinas
|
|
response 126 of 424:
|
Jan 13 05:16 UTC 2004 |
Thanks, Joe. Your first paragraph explains the rational. Don't know why I
missed that particular line of argument.
|
gull
|
|
response 127 of 424:
|
Jan 13 14:09 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 128 of 424:
|
Jan 13 14:10 UTC 2004 |
(Sorry, had a typo in the above.)
Re resp:125: I believe my proposal addresses that 'precedent' by setting
a formal policy. If your concern is future policy, restoring jep's
items is not very relevent. I'm starting to suspect, though, that the
goal of doing so is not to get some benefit for Grex, but to punish jep.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 129 of 424:
|
Jan 13 14:15 UTC 2004 |
See my comment in item #76. I don't consider it "punishment" to ask a user
to make amends to the system when that person's extreme actions in
violation of system policy harm the system and innocent users.
|
jep
|
|
response 130 of 424:
|
Jan 13 14:23 UTC 2004 |
re resp:128: Are you suggesting it's important to make sure staff
members don't sacrifice their positions to delete items, Joe? I think
that's pretty silly.
|
jep
|
|
response 131 of 424:
|
Jan 13 14:35 UTC 2004 |
re resp:128: I don't know if I'd say there's an intent to punish me for
my wrongdoing. I've very thoroughly outlined what I did,and why I did
it. Anyone who reads item:76 would, I think, have to conclude I acted
properly.
I think there's a willingness from some people, who have no interest in
Grex policy other than this issue, to make an example of me. The items
weren't being read, and so were important only to me. Deleting them
harms no one. I followed every rule and procedure that existed. But
none of that matters. There's a principle; it affects only someone
else and therefore is terrific for abstract purposes; it's got to be
defended, gosh darn it! What's a mere person or two compared to
something important like that?
|
jp2
|
|
response 132 of 424:
|
Jan 13 14:38 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 133 of 424:
|
Jan 13 14:40 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 134 of 424:
|
Jan 13 14:41 UTC 2004 |
Cyklone, what policy did jep violate? It was Valerie who deleted
the item.
|
jp2
|
|
response 135 of 424:
|
Jan 13 14:43 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
keesan
|
|
response 136 of 424:
|
Jan 13 15:25 UTC 2004 |
If JEP wants his responses to stay deleted even if the items were restored,
I would also delete my responses to be nice to him, and other people might
do the same, in which case what is left is hardly likely to be useful to
anybody else getting divorced. It would be too disjointed. I propose we
restore the responses only of people who request this specifically, if the
staff has enough time to bother with this. And put something at the beginning
of the dismembered item explaining what happened to it. Would this satisfy
everyone? How many people so far have said they wanted their responses in
JEP's items restored, even if his responses stayed gone?
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 137 of 424:
|
Jan 13 16:37 UTC 2004 |
I was going to suggest the same solution. If someone will give me a copy of
the items, I will go through and create a file that contains only the
responses of people who -ask- to have their responses posted again.
|
jp2
|
|
response 138 of 424:
|
Jan 13 16:41 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|