|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 393 responses total. |
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).
|
naftee
|
|
response 153 of 393:
|
Jan 7 20:59 UTC 2004 |
re 150 I suggest you and Misti learn about the 'retire' command.
|
aruba
|
|
response 154 of 393:
|
Jan 7 21:02 UTC 2004 |
There was a case, a few years ago, when the fairwitness of the sex
conference went through and deleted all the items in the conference, to
avoid them becoming available on the web. As I recall, everyone agreed that
that was an abuse of power, and the items were restored from backup. Am I
misremembering the outcome?
|
slynne
|
|
response 155 of 393:
|
Jan 7 21:25 UTC 2004 |
resp:147 - I realize that. I am not asking that any comments be
removed. I am pointing out a reason why we may want to consider
changing the policy.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 156 of 393:
|
Jan 7 21:27 UTC 2004 |
Re 151>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! :-)
Actually it would be abuse of power. Just because a fw has the ability
to delete an item, doesn't mean that they can when they need to. From
what I understand, you can only delete items if they're a security
threat or contain some illegal matter. I've had my wrist slapped on
mnet for deleting items which were irrelevant and no-one read. Being
fw ain't all that it's cracked up to be ;)
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 157 of 393:
|
Jan 7 21:28 UTC 2004 |
Re 155> I don't quite get what you're trying to point out. It sounds
like we need to change policy so that people can post stuff that they
want to censor. Or maybe I'm mis-reading
|
slynne
|
|
response 158 of 393:
|
Jan 7 21:40 UTC 2004 |
I am saying that we may want to consider changing the policy so that in
certain specific cases, item authors retain control of the entire item
including other people's posts in that item.
|
mary
|
|
response 159 of 393:
|
Jan 7 21:41 UTC 2004 |
I'm curious. Folks who want to discuss personal issues here have a
choice. They can run it like a diary, entering responses and then
freezing the item until they have more to say. Or they can encourage
discussion by leaving the item open for postings. If it's displayed as a
diary (frozen) then the author remains in control and the item can be
killed at any time.
If it's left open for discussion the person who started the discussion
doesn't own anyone else's comments. I find it mind boggling to think
otherwise.
If Valerie had run her baby diary as a frozen item, and someone else had
entered a companion item for comments, would Valerie consider it her
privilege to kill the comments item? What's the difference, really.
I think the baby item should be restored from backup and Valerie allowed
to completely expunge her comments. The resulting item will be one long
mess making no sense whatsoever. But this change in policy allowing users
to censor other users will be far worse, I believe.
|
slynne
|
|
response 160 of 393:
|
Jan 7 21:54 UTC 2004 |
I think that keeping an item frozen is a pain. It is very common on
many blog sites to allow the author control of everything, including
comments. I have noticed some big advantages of this. Discussions stay
on focus.
|