|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 186 responses total. |
scott
|
|
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
|
willcome
|
|
response 127 of 186:
|
Dec 4 02:33 UTC 2003 |
No-one's spammed anyone but your MOM, scott.
|
scg
|
|
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.
|
willcome
|
|
response 129 of 186:
|
Dec 4 12:22 UTC 2003 |
I find myself puking.
|
mynxcat
|
|
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.
|
jp2
|
|
response 131 of 186:
|
Dec 4 13:58 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
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.
|
willcome
|
|
response 133 of 186:
|
Dec 4 14:29 UTC 2003 |
Thabjsm ho2!
,
q
|
other
|
|
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.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 135 of 186:
|
Dec 4 14:50 UTC 2003 |
Jamie's data, as reported so far does not include any responses that don't
support his position. Interestingly, I replied to him from another account
with a response that has not yet shown up in his tally.
For those of you who thing there is some "Old Grex" that is a closed clique,
I have to report that you are simply wrong. I first became a user of Grex
in 1996, long, long after it was established. I had none of the "acceptance"
problems, the "ideas being ignored", or any of the other issues that have been
raised by those who feel they are excluded.
In an established community, you do not bring change by declaring
something wrong, and going off like the Lone Ranger to demonstrate how
wrong everyone else is. You especially do not bring about change by
deliberately violating norms of the community, written or unwritten.
And you really lose support for your cause, no matter how good it is, by
claiming that you shouldn't HAVE to follow the rules in this case, because
you are special. Donations of time, money, and equipment do not make a
person more privileged on Grex.
Staff did what our written policies say they should do. We are havin a
(mostly) healthy discussion about whether those policies are reasonable,
or whether we have found a case that demonstrates a need for changing
those policies. Grex has an open, well-known procedure for users to bring
about change in policy. Whining, namecalling, and claiming that people
who started the system won't let others get involved are very
counterproductive procedures.
As much as I like Jan's statement (help me out here, someone) about not
letting your dislike of a person's behavior get in the way of evaluating
an idea they put forward, I find myself shutting down on this issue.
Jamie deliberately violated written policy, caused the system grief, and
is now getting supporters who claim that staff should not have treated him
_just_like_our_policies_say_they_should_.
Those of you who would like to bring about social change need to learn how
to apply the tools of social change. Any organizational development text
book, any community organizing text book, and many private treatises
explain the principles in detail.
If you want to change Grex, learn to use the Grex communities consensus
building tools and work for change using the Grex community's style.
Riding up to the gates on your charger, waving your sword, and scattering
the chickens is _not_ real productive behavior outside of a society where
power-over is the controlling norm.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 136 of 186:
|
Dec 4 14:52 UTC 2003 |
Other slipped in.
|
aruba
|
|
response 137 of 186:
|
Dec 4 14:54 UTC 2003 |
An excellent response, Colleen.
|
jp2
|
|
response 138 of 186:
|
Dec 4 15:02 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 139 of 186:
|
Dec 4 15:43 UTC 2003 |
I agree with resp:128, except that I had decided after a few days of
watching his campaign that I wasn't going to vote for jp2. I think he
deserves a fair run at it, though.
Resp:131 suggests that part of our membership problem may be simply not
getting the word out to people who don't regularly read agora. Besides
the "Becoming a member" item in each agora, what can we do to explain
membership to people? I wonder how many of those 19 people would become
members if they knew what it was all about?
|
other
|
|
response 140 of 186:
|
Dec 4 15:55 UTC 2003 |
I think an even more basic problem is that people simply DON'T READ
the newuser text.
I think it would be appropriate to have newuser offer something like
this:
In order to create a user account on Grex, you'll have to agree
to the following. IF YOU VIOLATE THESE TERMS, YOUR ACCOUNT WILL
BE FROZEN.
Press return to continue:
[present terms]
If you agree to these terms, press return to continue. If not,
you may disconnect now.
|
flem
|
|
response 141 of 186:
|
Dec 4 16:11 UTC 2003 |
scg mentioned that he wished staff had tried to deal with jp2 by
communicating with him first rather than locking his account and then
communicating with him. I kind of feel the same way, but... I find
myself reasonably satisfied with the outcome. I think that the fact
that Grex's staff is allowed so much leeway to deal with things by using
discretion and common sense is something that makes Grex special. I
think it leads to far more situations dealt with fairly and quickly, and
with far less total effort, than if we tried to make a comprehensive
policy and ask staff to stick with it rigidly. As has been amply
demonstrated recently, Grex has people who will try to hack the policy
system (willcome, jp2 et al.), and a simple, flexibly policy that relies
on discretion and common sense is far more resistant to that kind of
meddling than any more rigid policy structure. So I'm perfectly happy
to accept the fact that staffers may occasionally disagree with me
regarding the perfect response to a problem, and I'm quite content to
stay off their backs about it. Bravo, staff, keep up the great work.
Regarding the people saying that the Grex Old Guard is using personal
dislike for people to justify belittling and ignoring their ideas... I
have no idea whether you include me in that category (I'm just a spring
chicken, only been here since '94. :), but I don't buy it. One of the
things I've always been proud of Grex for is precisely the opposite of
this accusation: I think that the community of Grex has always been
very receptive of good ideas when they come from people who are
generally disliked. The thing is, people disagree about what
constitutes a good idea. You can't blame someone for being unreceptive
to a bad idea, no matter who it comes from. Some examples: jp2
discovered a defect with the bylaws in that it was unclear whether a
quorum was required for member votes -- and now a proposal is underway
to amend the bylaws to fix this, a proposal made by other, who y'all
have directly accused of being unwilling to listen to jp2's ideas
because of personal dislike. On the other hand, jp2 also suggested that
Grex make sweeping changes to the way it keeps its books. A lot of us
thought this is a bad idea, and explained why.
|
remmers
|
|
response 142 of 186:
|
Dec 4 16:30 UTC 2003 |
Re #139: The only effect of locking jp2's account on his run at
a board position was that his campaign statement wasn't visible
in the vote program for part of a day. I fixed that, before
the account was unlocked, by reconfiguring the vote program to
look for the statement in his jp2test account and letting him
know that the vote program would display it if he put it there
(which he promptly did).
If Jamie's run for the board fails, it won't be for lack
of visibility. His candidacy has already gotten far more
discussion than any board candidate in the history of Grex,
and we're only three days into the election.
I have to agree with cmcgee and others that some folks are
imagining a conspiratorial old-guard mentality on the part of
the staff that (a) doesn't exist, and (b) even if it did exist,
wouldn't have the final determination in how things are run.
I'll point out that since 1992 Grex has had a bylaw provision
that allows policy to be set by member vote. This is far more
empowering to the members than what one finds in most non-profit
corporations. This provision has been exercised a number of
times; various key policies (limits on outgoing internet access,
anonymous conference reading, no quotas in elections, depermission
of the censored file, opening up the board to non-local members
-- to name five) were adopted by member vote, NOT by the staff,
and NOT by the board. I'm sure there were staff members who
disagreed -- I'd guess I voted on the losing side in around half
of the member votes -- but they became policy because it's what
the majority of voting members wanted.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 143 of 186:
|
Dec 4 16:46 UTC 2003 |
I did reply to that email, Jamie, but my net connection died on me.
Anyhow, my stand has changed since then, so it doesn't matter.
Eric, I agree partially with what you say. The time I became
interested with policy is when the system was inundated (maybe not the
right word, I can think of only 2 users) with users that could be
vexing and may have resorted to vandalism of some sort. It does grate
when people can't seem to see past that and automatically dismiss all
outsiders. True others have had annoying arguing habits. But who's to
say what's annoying. I find some of the old school grexers argument
habits annoying as hell. Doesn't mean I'd dismiss their ideas without
giving them a chance. And that's what I've seen happen here.
This whole thing about Jamie's little spamming survey. Ok, he spammed,
he broke the system, he got his account locked, he got it back, he
posted results. There have been a couple that have been interested in
the results and that's good. Then there are others that refuse to see
value in what he's done. I agree, sending out 900 emails was stupid,
but what was he trying to do with those 900 emails? Sell Viagra? No,
he was trying to guage users and what they thought of the system and
how we could make it better for them? Isn't that part of grex's
mission. He also unearthed that there are quite a few users out there
that don't know what a member is and how to become one. For a system
that needs new members, this is something that definitely needs
addressed. But no one's looking at that. All most people seem to be
hung up about is that Jamie spammed the system. Jamie is
argumentative. Jamie is a bad person. They all may be true. But he's
also brought up a few good points with his survey.
Colleen, true you were accepted easily. Part of it could be that you
were local, and therefore more visible, so it's easy to get people to
like you and trust you. That, and 1996 still was pretty much old
school. However, a person that comes into the community post 2000, and
is not from AA or the vicinity, the general idea they get is that grex
is for AA and that's it. If that's the way grex wants to be, sure,
there's nothing wrong with that. Tell me if that's the case, and I'll
shut up. You guys are working fine if that's your aim.
Mark, fwiw, you are one of the few people on this system that I find
fair and balanced when it comes to issues such as the ones at hand. I
don't think there's a conspiracy per se. I don't imagine all the old
schoolers huddled at their board meetings whispering, trying to keep
people out :) But it's the attitude of a lot of people. There is a
certain "smugness" that that random user talks about.
True, it seems there are people who want to change the system. I agree
that trying to do so without regard to where the system has been or
caring what the general public feel is not the way to do it.
Unfortunately we've seen a lot of that happen. But change is good. And
the only way grex can survive is with change. I'm not saying we should
become like AOL or MSN, but maybe move a little with the times?
And I don't think there's a conspiracy within the staff either. They
seem to be the most removed from political discussion than most of the
other people, which is a good thing.
(I apologise if my post is disjointed. This is the third time I'm
trying to post and each time I get an error page. The next attempt to
post usually brings up a new response to this item again.
Is there a problem with backtalk? )
|
remmers
|
|
response 144 of 186:
|
Dec 4 16:57 UTC 2003 |
Resp 143: "However, a person that comes into the community post 2000, and
is not from AA or the vicinity, the general idea they get is that grex
is for AA and that's it."
Can you back that up? I'm honestly mystified where that notion comes from.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 145 of 186:
|
Dec 4 17:32 UTC 2003 |
I know a lot of people who use grex and they won't interact with other
people. One friend (who no longer uses grex from what I can tell) told
me he didn't like interacting with other people especially in party
and on bbs because all of them seemed to be talking to each other
about things they knew and people they knew. Agreed, he may be a
little thin-skinned (I personally have never had a problem in party
for the most part, though one user's comments about restricting party
to English speakers because of all the Indians that would get on and
talk in Hindi, pissed me off. However that was one user. Not a big
deal) A lot of the items in Agora are AA based - the spotted item, the
lunch item. Again. I personally think that these items are great. But
another user told me how she hated them because they seemed to be
rubbing it in her face that grex was for AA, and not to forget it.
(This was from a member that was around from at least 1996 if not
earlier)
These are petty things, true. But the idea they are giving non-local
people is that Grex is primarily for AA and the vicinity. Again, I've
had this conversation with someone else, and it was pointed out that
this was a recent development, not present in the old days. I agree
this may be the case. This sentiment wasn't present in the early 90s
when there were a LOT of non-local people in the userbase. But the
general feeling of people logging on now seems to have changed. If it
doesn't seem to bother people around here, and they think they're
doing fine without making people feel welcome, that's all well. But if
you do think you're creating a community that welcomes everyone, no
matter where they're from, then sorry. That's not the case. There are
people that will not participate because they don't think they belong.
(Not me, I'm here posting, so I guess I do have some feeling of
belonging).
The question is
a) Do we really want non-local people (both non-AA-ites and non-
Americans) to feel like they belong.
b) Is it worth it to make the changes (either in attitudes, prices,
general content etc) to make other people feel like they belong?
If the answer to either of these questions is No, then this discussion
need not be pursued further.
(I picked 2000, a little at random, maybe because I was around briefly
in 1997-1998 and returned full-force in 2002. 2000 seemed like a good
enough turning point, though it could have been earlier or later)
|
aruba
|
|
response 146 of 186:
|
Dec 4 18:47 UTC 2003 |
a) yes.
I'm not sure it's possible to please everyone, but yes, definitely. What
changes do you think would make non-Ann Arborites feel welcome? Are you
proposing not having a walk or a "spotted" item?
|
remmers
|
|
response 147 of 186:
|
Dec 4 18:55 UTC 2003 |
(It would be impossible to forbid either without compromising Grex's
free speech philosophy.)
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 148 of 186:
|
Dec 4 19:24 UTC 2003 |
Re 146) I'm not proposing that. I like those items. And even if I
didn't like them, remmers makes a good point. I don't have the answers
right now. Maybe this is something that isn't possible. Or maybe there
are avenues we can discuss to bring these changes about. And I don't
think this is a board/staff issue. Maybe more of a community issue.
And you're right. You can't please everyone. I don't expect every
person that comes to grex to love it for what it is. And I wouldn't
suggest trying to please everyone.
One thing I think I'd like to start seeing is "advertising" bbs and
party a little more to the general user who logs in. Maybe in the
motd? (I believe mnet tried a similar experiment, but I'm not sure of
the details, maybe tod, jp2, jep or other mnetters could elaborate? )
Also, we do get a lot of newusers, but most of them come here for a
free shell account to try Unix skills or for the email. I'd like some
way to make these users aware of the community side of things. True,
the newuser program does say some stuff, but face it, no one really
reads through all that stuff.
Neither of these ideas are aimed at anything specifically non-local,
but they have the potential of getting more new people involved in the
community which could bring in diversity to the interaction we have
here.
(Also, I haven't paid attention to the "Other conferences on grex"
item in agora, but I think we need to mention coop there, to have more
people involved in the actual working of this system, or at least
aware of it's existance)
|
jp2
|
|
response 149 of 186:
|
Dec 4 19:35 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 150 of 186:
|
Dec 4 19:48 UTC 2003 |
Well, let me talk about the "visibility" issue. As far as I remember, I have
been to one event where grexers were gathered. I went on a Grexwalk because
coyote's mother woauld not let h im meet an internect acquaintence
face-to-face unless she were with him. We all three agreed to meet at a
Grexwalk.
That's it. That's my "visibility" on Grex. I think Clees has been more
visible than I have.
But I don't think "visibility" is really the issue. I have never met
anyone who is running for the Board, except for polygon. In most
elections, I've never met any of the candidates. So their being "local"
or "visible" has not been a criterion.
Indeed, most of the people here have never met me, and were I running,
would have to make up their minds about my suitability for the postion
based on how I behave on Grex, not what they see me do IRL. My influence
in the Grex community is based on how I behave here, not on some
geographical context.
So, no, once again, it is not hard to be accepted into this community.
They don't even have to meet you anywhere but on-line. And you don't have
to have been here since the olden days. People are having a hard time
being accepted because they do not subscribe to the same values and
behavior of this _already_established_community_. If you want to be
comfortable in a group, you fit in. If you want the group to be radically
different from what it is, don't expect to feel comfortable, and don't
expect the community to work very hard at making you feel comfortable.
What I do like is the way people's ideas are being evaluated separately
from their behavior. I do not have to vote for someone whose behavior is
disruptive and causes contention. But it's nice to see this community
examining the ideas carefully, and discussing and moving on them in spite
of the source.
|