|
Grex > Coop13 > #75: Member Initative: Restore the Murdered Items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 424 responses total. |
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.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 139 of 424:
|
Jan 13 17:13 UTC 2004 |
"Rampant censorship"???
Perspective: we are talking about two items in a database of what, 5,000 or
10,000 items??
|
slynne
|
|
response 140 of 424:
|
Jan 13 17:36 UTC 2004 |
I dont think the outcome would be much different if it only those ask
to be removed are removed.
|
jp2
|
|
response 141 of 424:
|
Jan 13 17:42 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 142 of 424:
|
Jan 13 17:58 UTC 2004 |
As to my responses - I'll be taking a look at them and making the
decision as to whether they'll be censored or not.
I guess that means I'm not in the warm and fuzzy club. ;-)
|
happyboy
|
|
response 143 of 424:
|
Jan 13 18:12 UTC 2004 |
i don't want my words censored at all.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 144 of 424:
|
Jan 13 18:23 UTC 2004 |
Re #134: WHile you are technically correct, jep is complicit in the violation
when he opposes undoing the damage of the violation for his own personal
benefit. When a sloppy teller gives me extra money, I give it back.
Technically, only the teller is at fault. However, I do have a sense of
decency to do the right thing. I am asking the same of jep.
|
remmers
|
|
response 145 of 424:
|
Jan 13 18:28 UTC 2004 |
Re #137: I don't think that's a feasible way to proceed. The file
you edit would have to be in raw Picospan format (which is quite different
from the way the file displays on the screen), and any hand-editing would
have to be very careful to preserve that format.
This would work and not be excessively labor-intensive: Create a temporary
closed conference, restore the items from a backup tape to that conference,
run Valerie's scribble script to remove jep's responses and those of
anybody else who wants their responses removed, then move the items back
to the appropriate Agoras. That way, there's no point in time when
jep's responses are visible to the public, and most of the work has
been done by software.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 146 of 424:
|
Jan 13 18:46 UTC 2004 |
Great. I always vote to let software do the tedious, rote stuff.
|
keesan
|
|
response 147 of 424:
|
Jan 13 20:06 UTC 2004 |
Has everyone who posted in those two items been reading coop? There might
be people who are not following this discussion who don't mind their responses
being deleted along with jep's.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 148 of 424:
|
Jan 13 20:40 UTC 2004 |
Not knowing the names of everyone who responded to JEP's items, I can't
answer your question, Sindi.
|
tod
|
|
response 149 of 424:
|
Jan 13 20:59 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 150 of 424:
|
Jan 13 21:55 UTC 2004 |
Re #130: No, I'm saying that if a staff member goes rogue again, they
should do it with the understanding that all will be for
naught, and any items they remove will be restored from
backup as soon as is practical. I don't believe that what
Valerie did was okay, and as a consequence I don't believe
we should let it stand.
Since I also believe that the person who entered a response
has the right to remove their own words, and since I agree
that this crap has made your items high-profile, I think it's
completely reasonable to take your responses out of the items
before they're reopened to public view. I support that.
|