response 135 of 170:

Jan 12 11:30 UTC 2004

Re #133, point (4):  Nah, no need to revisit the rules.  But I'll point
out that being within one's right to do a certain thing does not make
it a good idea to do that thing, or make it wrong for people to be
annoyed that the thing was done.

response 139 of 170:

Jan 13 22:34 UTC 2004

As I've been one of the most vocal using the word vandal in reference to
Valerie, I can say at least that I'm not calling her a vandal for
deleting all her own postings.  I think it was stupid and petulant
behavior, but not vandalism.  
  Deleting everyone else's posts in the baby diary and in jep's items
was vandalism.  Restoring those posts in those items is not about
punishing anyone, it's about repairing the damage that a vandal has done
to the system.  

I just think it's a really, really awfully bad idea for Grex to put up
with anyone deleting other people's comments, no matter who they are or
how compelling the reason.  If we allow it in general, we're setting
ourselves up for years of having to make decisions about the validity of
other people's reasons for wanting items deleted.  If we disallow it in
general but allow it in these particular cases, we're saying that
valerie and jep are somehow more important and their reasons for
censoring people are more important than anyone else's could possibly be.  

Suppose next year polytarp logs in and says that he is going to be
conducting job interviews, and he wants all the items in which he acted
like an asshole deleted because he has changed and they could
potentially hurt him if a prospective employer got ahold of them.  Are
we going to have this whole discussion again?  Or are we just going to
tell him to delete his own posts and go away?  Why is polytarp different
from valerie and jep?  

I don't buy the water-under-the-bridge argument.  This *isn't* in the
past; we have backups which are (presumably; maybe valerie owns a
magnet) still intact and so nothing is final.  If we do not restore
these items from them, we are collectively just as culpable for this
censorship as valerie.  

response 141 of 170:

Jan 14 14:29 UTC 2004

I like the polytarp analogy.

response 143 of 170:

Jan 14 16:34 UTC 2004

jep, you are simply RATIONALIZING!!!!!  It's really quite annoying - stop it.
"They're something else now."  BS.  They are what they are, threads of text.
To me, the jury is still out on whether any of the items deleted by valerie
should be restored.  But I will not accept your argument that they have
magically morphed into something more than they were.  Your statements are
self-serving, and I'm tired of hearing it.

response 145 of 170:

Jan 14 19:56 UTC 2004

Re #142:  I've avoided using the "vandalism" word before this, but I
          need to use it here to make a distinction.  Those items were
          not deleted by someone with the authority to do it as part of
          normal Grex practice.  Asking whether we would call for their
          return if a FW had cleaned them out is a poor analogy for that
          reason.

          A better analogy is whether we'd ask for them to come back if
          they'd been removed by a vandal who wasn't a trusted member
          of the staff at the time.  Say polytarp had done it.  Would
          we want them back?  Absolutely.

response 147 of 170:

Jan 14 23:52 UTC 2004

yer just that special.

response 149 of 170:

Jan 15 02:00 UTC 2004

Re resp:143: Everyone is rationalizing in this item.  Specifically, 
they're presenting what they feel are the rational reasons for their 
opinions.

I disagree with the 'vandalism' analogies.  I don't feel they're 
accurate.  If someone hacked root and started deleting stuff, they'd be 
clearly doing something that was against the rules.  It looks to me like 
what valerie and jep did was in a grey area.  Not even all the remaining 
staff initially agreed on whether what valerie did was permissable or 
not.  I'm not sure it's fair to retroactively apply a black-and-white 
policy to their actions *now*.

response 151 of 170:

Jan 15 03:13 UTC 2004

I didn't say I thought their actions were admirable.  Just that I'm not 
convinced it was obviously against Grex policy to take them.

response 153 of 170:

Jan 15 03:34 UTC 2004

re resp:143: I'm really sorry you think I'm rationalizing, and that 
there's something wrong with doing that.

I very much don't want my items restored.  It's important to me.  I am 
trying to answer all of the points being made from my perspective.  
It's definitely true that I'm trying to serve my own interests.

As a matter of fact, I'm obsessed enough by the issue I've pretty much 
stopped logging in to Grex from work, because once I'm here I can't 
skip getting involved in it.  I come to coop first.  I might or might 
not read the other conferences before I'm done for the night.  I hope 
I'll be in bed before 1:00 a.m. -- I'll have a bad day at work if I 
don't get some sleep.  What you're seeing is what happens when an 
obsessive-compulsive type person gets wrapped up in something.

I'm sorry to be annoying to you, though.  It's not my intention.

response 155 of 170:

Jan 15 03:38 UTC 2004

re 152 jep still seems to think that a permissible precedent was set when
valerie deleted her items, as per response 340 item 68.
I'm not sure if he will ever change his misunderstanding.  Maybe he's just
that obsessed.