|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 393 responses total. |
ryan
|
|
response 128 of 393:
| 
Jan 7 18:42 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 129 of 393:
|
Jan 7 18:42 UTC 2004 |
Staff is already getting requests to have whole items removed.
Evidently, others are having second thoughts about the public
discussions they started. Yuck.
My advice would be for anyone who has responses *they've* made
that they now regret making, censor *your* comments. Now.
But allowing users to kill other user's responses is a huge
shift in our philosopy. Any change in policy should follow
public discussion and a vote by the membership.
I would be against any deal which would *sanction* a staff
member's abuse of power in exchange for their resignation.
|
jp2
|
|
response 130 of 393:
|
Jan 7 18:46 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 131 of 393:
|
Jan 7 18:52 UTC 2004 |
I also think there is a difference between changing the policy so that
some items can be put in control of the authors of said items and
deleting items (and posts) that were entered prior to this discussion.
I am not so sure it would be a bad idea to give item authors in certain
conferences control over their items. In the future.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 132 of 393:
|
Jan 7 18:58 UTC 2004 |
(jp2, I argued for closing the censored log. I agreed then that the
owner of the response should have control over its continued publication.
The only difference here is the identity of the owner: here, I claim that
there are, or can be, multiple owners. I have been arguing in favour of
the desires of the most-restrictive owner.)
jp2 mentioned asking that an item be deleted and not getting a response.
I have not replied to his message because I wanted to make sure staff
agreed on any response I would make before I made one. So far, the
result has been a clear lack of consensus. {Left to my own devices,
my answer would be, "Sure. No problem. It's gone." But I'm not left
to my own devices here. :) }
Based on the trend I have seen in this item, and the related items,
I predict the ultimate answer will be, "No." If that is the answer,
it will apply to any other similar requests.
|
jp2
|
|
response 133 of 393:
|
Jan 7 19:03 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
ryan
|
|
response 134 of 393:
|
Jan 7 19:09 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 135 of 393:
|
Jan 7 19:16 UTC 2004 |
M-net would be the natural choice, but I think that'd be too easy. ;>
|
jp2
|
|
response 136 of 393:
|
Jan 7 19:29 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cross
|
|
response 137 of 393:
|
Jan 7 19:36 UTC 2004 |
Regarding #128; That's specious. No one yelled fire in a crowded
theater here. Some people did something that offended someone and hurt
her feelings. Rude? Insensitive? Stupid? Maybe. Seriously damaging
to other lives or property? No, not at all.
There might be valid reasons to delete entire items: a serial killer
decides to pick an item and track down everyone who ever posted to it
and kill them. That seems like a good reason to get rid of the item in
question (and call the FBI), but that's not what happened here.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 138 of 393:
|
Jan 7 19:46 UTC 2004 |
Where do you come up with such scary scenarios. It's coz you're a New
Yorker, right?
Now I'll have to go delete every post I ever made, or I won't be able
to sleep at night.
|
cross
|
|
response 139 of 393:
|
Jan 7 19:52 UTC 2004 |
This event has set a really bad precedent. Staff has, so far, gotten two
requests to delete items in other conferences. One staffer (I'm not going
to mention names here) suggested acting on one immediately and opening the
other for public discussion (which got which response is beyond the scope
of this note). I think that that sets an even more dangerous precedent.
Folks, this is not good. The issue goes beyond one person and her
feelings. We're talking about freedom of expression, and granting other
individuals the right to deny you that freedom by erasing what you've
expressed. It's a shame Valerie felt hurt by what happened to her baby
diary on mnet, but what she's done is far worse, not in and of itself,
but for the precedent it sets.
A lot of people are seeing the usual suspects complain loudly and saying,
``just drop it.'' But for once the usual suspects are on to something
(even if it is couched in hyperbole and self-righteousness in some cases).
This *is* an important issue, and it goes to the *core* of what Grex
purports to be all about. Ignoring the argument because you don't like
who's arguing would be a tragic mistake.
At the end of the day, is removing Valerie's baby diary *that* big of
a deal by itself? No. But sanctioning it says we're willing to let
people trample on the words of other's when they feel they have reason,
even if those words present no clear and present danger to anyone,
and *that* IS a big deal.
Oh yeah, and for once, I actually agree with Mary! (Actually, I've
agreed with Mary many times in the past.)
|
cross
|
|
response 140 of 393:
|
Jan 7 19:54 UTC 2004 |
(Sapna slipped in.)
Yeah, living in the city has something to do with it, I guess. A more
timid example would be someone picking a random item and publically
harassing all the participants in it with endless prank calls, house
eggings, anchovi pizza's, etc.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 141 of 393:
|
Jan 7 19:59 UTC 2004 |
Even scarier.
|
jp2
|
|
response 142 of 393:
|
Jan 7 20:03 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 143 of 393:
|
Jan 7 20:16 UTC 2004 |
Aren't the fairwitnesses being overlooked here? Since they, too, seem to have
the ability to fully kill items in their conferences, item-enterers should
be starting with the fairwitnesses of the conference in which the item was
entered, before going right to staff.
Now, if you say, "Well, fairwitnesses shouldn't be killing entire items willy
nilly either", then note that is a situation that has been around for a long
time, with this whole issue apparently overlooked. If valerie had gone to
the fairwitnesses of the femme and kids conferences and got them to unlink
and/or kill her items, thus not needing to use her staff privileges, then no
one would have cause to accuse her of abuse, although this issue still would
remain for discussion.
If it is decided that neither staff nor fw's should be killing items outright,
except for clear security / legal reasons, that is likely to be strictly a
policy decision, since you can't prevent staff / root from doing anything,
and it might be the case that you can't take away fw's ability to kill items.
|
slynne
|
|
response 144 of 393:
|
Jan 7 20:20 UTC 2004 |
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, if I had an item
here that had really personal things in it, I would want to have
control over that item. I was kind of experimenting recently with blogs
and tried to do a sort of diary item blog thing (it is in the
enigma.cf) similar to valerie's baby diary item. There are a number of
reasons why grex's software isnt working for me for this purpose but
one of them is the lack of control over an item's posts *and* the
comments (although that isnt the biggest reason it isnt working for me)
I also know that if I had an item here and I wanted it gone and I was
on staff, I probably would use my staff/root powers to delete it but
only if deleting it was more important to me than staying on staff. In
other words, if I were in valerie's position, I would have done the
same thing.
I dont think it would be a good idea to adopt a policy where already
existing items are deleted at the author's request. I do think it would
be ok to adopt a policy where items in certain conferences are
considered the property of the author. That way, anyone who really is
worried about having their comments deleted can refrain from posting in
those items if they wish.
There also should be some policy about conference cleanup since if we
make it a policy that no items can ever be deleted, things could get
crowded around her real quick.
|
mta
|
|
response 145 of 393:
|
Jan 7 20:34 UTC 2004 |
FWIW, had Valerie asked me, as moderator of the Femme conference, I
would have deleted her baby diaries immediately.
|
jp2
|
|
response 146 of 393:
|
Jan 7 20:35 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 147 of 393:
|
Jan 7 20:37 UTC 2004 |
Re 144>The worry that things could get crowded around here hasn't come
up
before. I thought that it was a moot point. I could be wrong.
If there are limitations to wht you can or cannot do on grex, and
these limitations are cramping your blog style, and don't give you
enough control, in terms of censorship, then move to another system.
There are various sites out there. valerie has gone on to create her
own software, and no one's complaining. But if you use grex to jot
down stuff in, and you have people respond, what you're agreeing to is
not deleting other people's comments. There's no screening here,
unless it's the author of the comment.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 148 of 393:
|
Jan 7 20:38 UTC 2004 |
Re 145> And this discussion would have come up about the fw of femme
abusing her powers. This discussion has grown to beyond whether
valerie was hurt or abused her staff powers. It's now whether one is
allowed to delete posts made by other people, just because you created
the item
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 149 of 393:
|
Jan 7 20:40 UTC 2004 |
Re 142> You make it sound like kissing my favorite body part is a bad
thing :(
|
valerie
|
|
response 150 of 393:
|
Jan 7 20:43 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 151 of 393:
|
Jan 7 20:51 UTC 2004 |
Sorry valerie, you still should have asked the fw's to help you first, before
alighting your light sabre. But I personally don't care that much.
Re: #148 - The *discussion* might have been about a fw abusing her power, but
it would have been a false accusation - fw's have the power to exercise
discretion about what items to nuke. It's been that way "forever",
apparently. If that is not desirable, then a policy change / establishment
is needed. I know, have a discussion about it! :-)
|
naftee
|
|
response 152 of 393:
|
Jan 7 20:55 UTC 2004 |
re 120 It's all about the logs.
re 135 What staff?
re 143
>If valerie had gone to the fairwitnesses
The scary thing is, she didn't go to anyone. Except maybe to her
husband to ask for the cfadm password. Don't forget that
fairwitnesses are not immune to being abusive.
re 144
>There also should be some policy about conference cleanup
Good point. But at least on M-net, there's a time period where
*everyone* is allowed to object or ask if some items are kept, etc.
I'm going to wager a guess that the GreX policy is comparable. But it
is impossible to keep everything, and people accept that. However,
what happened in the femme cf was an act of selfishness, really, and
was pretty much hidden from public view (e-mailing board and staff
doesn't count. Most of the posters don't receive their mail).
|