|
Grex > Coop13 > #76: member initiative: do not restore two items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 357 responses total. |
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.
|
jep
|
|
response 138 of 357:
|
Jan 13 17:24 UTC 2004 |
There were two staff members who stated outright that items would be
deleted by request of the person who entered them. I don't recall the
item number but it's willcome's item in which Valerie's actions were
first discussed. These statements were disputed, but they were made.
There was definitely reason to believe it could be that way.
It was *done* for valerie's items. There was a precedent for deleting
items.
I acted directly because of those two facts. I never asked for those
items to be deleted before last week. You'll just have to take my word
for it that I had long wished they could be deleted.
I didn't do anything wrong. I've explained in thorough detail my
thoughts and all of my actions that led to the items getting deleted.
I've provided the e-mails I sent and all of the responses I received.
= - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = -
Entirely aside from the actual argument, is the effects of the style
being used to counter my request.
I am a person to whom Grex is part of the real world. I don't have an
extra personality I only use on-line. Grex is part of where I live my
life. It hurts me to have people calling me "unethical" and a "vandal"
and things like that. I do not deserve any of that.
Some of you have known me for 15 years; enough to know my real
character flaws (of which I have plenty) and what kind of person I
really am. I am not a scam artist. I am not a vandal. I am not
unethical. I do the best I can. And you know all that. But your
labels may stick with me forever, because they are -- as you intended --
sensational.
Look at the responses of jaklumen. He hasn't known me for 15 years,
but is just sopping up these labels you cast around so casually. Every
time he sees my name, he's going to be thinking, "Oh, that's jep.
Someone said he's unethical. And called him a vandal."
What principle is it you're following when you do that? I can tell you
that. The principle is, "At whatever cost, never lose. Even more than
that, never, *ever* retreat, no matter what."
This is just the wrong way to go about the discussion.
|
jp2
|
|
response 139 of 357:
|
Jan 13 17:43 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 140 of 357:
|
Jan 13 17:49 UTC 2004 |
jep, I dont think you have acted unethically here. Nor do I think you
are a vandal.
I do admit to feeling *very* conflicted about this situation. On the
one hand, I like you and I dont want to see you hurt. I dont think
those items will hurt you but you clearly do. I respect your desire to
have them removed.
The folks who say that their words have been deleted and should be
restored have a valid point though. Their words should be restored
unless they give permission otherwise. I really would hope that all
participants in that item would give you permission to delete their
posts too.
You should know though, that the liklihood of that happening increases
if you ask them *before* this vote goes through. Because asking them
afterwards has the message "I dont care enough about your feelings
about your words to ask your permission to remove them. I am only
asking you now because my attempt to force the removal without your
permission failed".
|
albaugh
|
|
response 141 of 357:
|
Jan 13 18:05 UTC 2004 |
"jep the victim" doesn't play for me. I would respect you a lot more if you
just said "I want what I want because I want it", and skipped the explanations
and rationalizations.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 142 of 357:
|
Jan 13 18:29 UTC 2004 |
Exactly! He has yet to acknowledge that it was wrong to attempt to retain
a personal benefit based on a violation of grex policy. That is why I
proposed a "fine." It is a way to save face for all concerned, not
compensation for actual harm. It a way for jep to have his way while also
admitting it was wrong and caused harm to the core values of grex.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 143 of 357:
|
Jan 13 18:47 UTC 2004 |
Forcing someone to grovel is hardly a way to solve a problem.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 144 of 357:
|
Jan 13 19:22 UTC 2004 |
Yeah the $fine stuff is just silly.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 145 of 357:
|
Jan 13 20:59 UTC 2004 |
Then come up with something else. For all I care he can donate time to do
routine system maintenance. Hell, a heartfelt apology in which he takes
responsibility for his actions would be a good start. I hardly call that
"forcing someone to grovel."
|
tod
|
|
response 146 of 357:
|
Jan 13 21:05 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 147 of 357:
|
Jan 13 21:11 UTC 2004 |
That would be too rational and principled for grex.
|
tod
|
|
response 148 of 357:
|
Jan 13 21:21 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|