|
Grex > Oldcoop > #76: member initiative: do not restore two items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 357 responses total. |
cmcgee
|
|
response 137 of 357:
| 
Jan 13 17:01 UTC 2004 |
I am reminded of an emotionally abusive tactic I have seen used to control
people: invoking the rule "You can't change your mind".
From "When I Say No, I Feel Guilty", M. J. Smith, copyright 1975:
But if you do change your mind, other people may resist your new choice by
manipulation based on any of the childish beliefs we have seen, the most
common of which goes something like this: 'You should not change your mind
after you have committed yourself. If you change your mind, something is
wrong. You should justify your new choince or admit that you were in error.
If you are in error, you have shown that you are irresponsible, likely to be
wrong again, cause problems. Therefore you are nto capable of making
decisions by yourself.'
....
To be in touch with reality, to promote our own well-eing and happiness, we
have to accept the possibility that changes our minds is healthy and normal."
Some of the responses here are harking back to a policy change the membership
voted on previously: You do have the right to expurgate and scribble
responses in a way that makes them no longer available. Even if you knew at
the time that posting on the Internet was "public" you -can- change your mind.
And if you responded to an idea in a way that makes you humiliated when the
original idea is scribbled, then I suggest you think carefully before you
respond in that fashion. And also go back and scribble your own responses
that now humiliate you.
Grex is a community. We strive to create a community and some of us are very
upset when whatever vision of the Grex Community that we hold is challenged.
Two deeply held community values are in conflict here: The warm fuzzy
belongingness value that we try to create by things like the Saturday Walk
and Lunch, and the free-speech-to-the-death value that many of us also
espouse. Usually they don't conflict.
When someone has healed, matured, or otherwise come to view old thoughts,
beliefs and behaviors in a different light, it seems peculiar to say to them
"we don't care if you are trying to make amends, we will force you to remain
in the time-warp of who you used to be".
When two important values are in conflict, it is not necessary to say "We must
forever place one of these values in higher priority than the other."
We can say, by leaving jep's two items deleted, "Well, we wouldn't have done
it that way if we'd thought about it before, and we sure won't ever do it that
way again, but the value to being a supportive community suggests the solution
of leaving them deleted".
Or we can say "The value of my responses being forever readable outweighs
jep's needs in this instance, and I insist that my words be put back on public
view".
In any event this community must decide _in_this_instance_only_ how to handle
the situation. Because even a community has the right to change it's mind.
|
jep
|
|
response 138 of 357:
|
Jan 13 17:24 UTC 2004 |
There were two staff members who stated outright that items would be
deleted by request of the person who entered them. I don't recall the
item number but it's willcome's item in which Valerie's actions were
first discussed. These statements were disputed, but they were made.
There was definitely reason to believe it could be that way.
It was *done* for valerie's items. There was a precedent for deleting
items.
I acted directly because of those two facts. I never asked for those
items to be deleted before last week. You'll just have to take my word
for it that I had long wished they could be deleted.
I didn't do anything wrong. I've explained in thorough detail my
thoughts and all of my actions that led to the items getting deleted.
I've provided the e-mails I sent and all of the responses I received.
= - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = -
Entirely aside from the actual argument, is the effects of the style
being used to counter my request.
I am a person to whom Grex is part of the real world. I don't have an
extra personality I only use on-line. Grex is part of where I live my
life. It hurts me to have people calling me "unethical" and a "vandal"
and things like that. I do not deserve any of that.
Some of you have known me for 15 years; enough to know my real
character flaws (of which I have plenty) and what kind of person I
really am. I am not a scam artist. I am not a vandal. I am not
unethical. I do the best I can. And you know all that. But your
labels may stick with me forever, because they are -- as you intended --
sensational.
Look at the responses of jaklumen. He hasn't known me for 15 years,
but is just sopping up these labels you cast around so casually. Every
time he sees my name, he's going to be thinking, "Oh, that's jep.
Someone said he's unethical. And called him a vandal."
What principle is it you're following when you do that? I can tell you
that. The principle is, "At whatever cost, never lose. Even more than
that, never, *ever* retreat, no matter what."
This is just the wrong way to go about the discussion.
|
jp2
|
|
response 139 of 357:
|
Jan 13 17:43 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 140 of 357:
|
Jan 13 17:49 UTC 2004 |
jep, I dont think you have acted unethically here. Nor do I think you
are a vandal.
I do admit to feeling *very* conflicted about this situation. On the
one hand, I like you and I dont want to see you hurt. I dont think
those items will hurt you but you clearly do. I respect your desire to
have them removed.
The folks who say that their words have been deleted and should be
restored have a valid point though. Their words should be restored
unless they give permission otherwise. I really would hope that all
participants in that item would give you permission to delete their
posts too.
You should know though, that the liklihood of that happening increases
if you ask them *before* this vote goes through. Because asking them
afterwards has the message "I dont care enough about your feelings
about your words to ask your permission to remove them. I am only
asking you now because my attempt to force the removal without your
permission failed".
|
albaugh
|
|
response 141 of 357:
|
Jan 13 18:05 UTC 2004 |
"jep the victim" doesn't play for me. I would respect you a lot more if you
just said "I want what I want because I want it", and skipped the explanations
and rationalizations.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 142 of 357:
|
Jan 13 18:29 UTC 2004 |
Exactly! He has yet to acknowledge that it was wrong to attempt to retain
a personal benefit based on a violation of grex policy. That is why I
proposed a "fine." It is a way to save face for all concerned, not
compensation for actual harm. It a way for jep to have his way while also
admitting it was wrong and caused harm to the core values of grex.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 143 of 357:
|
Jan 13 18:47 UTC 2004 |
Forcing someone to grovel is hardly a way to solve a problem.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 144 of 357:
|
Jan 13 19:22 UTC 2004 |
Yeah the $fine stuff is just silly.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 145 of 357:
|
Jan 13 20:59 UTC 2004 |
Then come up with something else. For all I care he can donate time to do
routine system maintenance. Hell, a heartfelt apology in which he takes
responsibility for his actions would be a good start. I hardly call that
"forcing someone to grovel."
|
tod
|
|
response 146 of 357:
|
Jan 13 21:05 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 147 of 357:
|
Jan 13 21:11 UTC 2004 |
That would be too rational and principled for grex.
|
tod
|
|
response 148 of 357:
|
Jan 13 21:21 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
willcome
|
|
response 149 of 357:
|
Jan 13 21:34 UTC 2004 |
I'm glad my content's intact.
|
jp2
|
|
response 150 of 357:
|
Jan 13 21:39 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 151 of 357:
|
Jan 13 22:28 UTC 2004 |
Check the logs!
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 152 of 357:
|
Jan 14 10:37 UTC 2004 |
resp:138 Whoa, cowboy, just hold on right there. If you really want
to believe that, I'm sorry.
Yeah, I don't know you. But is it possible for me to disagree with
what how you did things without coming to the conclusion, "oh, gee,
he's just buying into everyone's rant that jep is an unethical vandal?"
I think it could be. By your same reasoning-- you don't know me-- I
don't know why the hell you chose to single me out.
I am a father, and I hope I can empathize on some level. If I
understand things correctly, you want some control on how you want to
discuss things with your son... to not risk the possibility of a lot
of unpleasantness just land in his lap.
Honestly, I think scribbing out your responses in the item would have
been the best way to go. Apparently-- that didn't happen-- we are all
dealing with this after the fact.
Again, I'm not sure why you see that I am projecting such unfavorable
views upon you. Granted, all I know of you is a father who obviously
cares about his son (hmmm, there is a possibility that I might have a
response or two in your items) and that the material that the items
covered was about a very difficult time that you wish to put behind
you. You've said that restoring the items jeopardizes that-- that
unscrupluous users will repost them to the forefront (do I remember
correctly) and that it could be damaging to you, and your son... if he
was to find it. I think it was mentioned that your ex-wife *might*
get a hold of it if she hadn't already.
I can understand all of that, and understand why the material should
be gone. Even if, theoretically, the material might have remained and
no harm would have been done, you had very good reasons to remove
it... and as best I understood, scribbling was the legitimate way to
have it done. However, a staff member intervened on your behalf,
deleted everything, and hence the controversy.
I don't make decisions cast in stone-- I do try to get as much
information as possible. To be honest, John, I am sympathetic and
empathetic, if you would believe that. But I am also sympathetic to
those who are examining the precedent this may cause, and
unfortunately, because Valerie was involved and because of the
controversy surrounding her own actions, well, I would like to push
for a solution that keeps policy on an even keel... because I don't
think any of us can tell what might happen in the future.
I know this must be terribly emotion-wrenching for you. But I'm not
thinking what you're claiming. Much too simplistic. At best, my
opinion is that some decisions were made that weren't well thought
out... maybe more on Valerie's part. I also see that those decisions
will have an impact on Grex policy... and what people decide will
determine how things are run in the future. I see two interests very
much at seeming conflict-- a father pleading against restoration,
arguing such is a foreseeable risk, and a group that argues
restoration (with scribbling later) is the way to preserving policy
for the future. Not sure how to have the cake and eat it too... but
solutions seem to be at an impass for the moment.
|
jep
|
|
response 153 of 357:
|
Jan 14 14:15 UTC 2004 |
re resp:152: Jack, my point in mentioning you is that you're someone
who doesn't know me very well, yet in resp:115 you referred to me and
said "unethical" about 4 times. I didn't mean to pick on you. I'm
sorry, because it's clear to me why you'd take it that way.
I haven't discussed in great detail the reasons I think there is risk
from those items. I don't want to. More detail about that isn't going
to change the discussion.
Once again, I'm not trying to change any policies, and I don't think I
*am* changing any policies. I'm asking for a very specific exception.
My request is not a referendum on Valerie or on her actions.
|
naftee
|
|
response 154 of 357:
|
Jan 14 14:34 UTC 2004 |
you're right, you aren't changing policies. They were temporarily changed
for you. That makes you special, but certainly not more correct.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 155 of 357:
|
Jan 14 15:36 UTC 2004 |
If the item is restored, I would like all of my responses deleted, as well,
just in case anyone is keeping track of who's said so or not.
|
other
|
|
response 156 of 357:
|
Jan 14 16:39 UTC 2004 |
Thanks a lot, Twila, for contributing something actually *useful* to
this discussion. You're gonna ruin the whole theme of the thing!
;)
|
carson
|
|
response 157 of 357:
|
Jan 14 17:31 UTC 2004 |
(my $.02: it appears to me that some of the very people who were so
helpful to John way back when are some of the same people who want
their words restored; I don't know because, although I was aware of the
existence of the items, I never read the items much and likely never
will. it also seems to me that, in the event that John's items on
divorce are restored, even if his responses are removed from said
items, it's his name and login credited with entering the items. [as
such, he's also the one who could, if the items were restored, go
through Backtalk and change the item titles to "Fluffy Grey Bunnies
Doing Handstands" or something similarly innocuous.] I've also seen it
mentioned that no one's read the items in over a year; I doubt that's
true, although it's possible that no one had *responded* to the items
in over a year. that's a nitpick on my part, but, as someone who
regularly reads old items, it's a nit worth picking.)
(I don't know how I would vote on this proposal. I keep trying to
apply various paradigms such as "freedom versus virtue" and "free
speech versus community" and "compassion versus law," but none of them
seem to apply in a way that I would like.)
|
albaugh
|
|
response 158 of 357:
|
Jan 14 19:20 UTC 2004 |
And as somebody else mentioned, jep can *retire* his items, so they are not
even apparent to the average user.
|
naftee
|
|
response 159 of 357:
|
Jan 14 23:56 UTC 2004 |
Thank you for mentioning that again. I'm sure it has been missed somewhere.
|
gull
|
|
response 160 of 357:
|
Jan 15 01:45 UTC 2004 |
I suspect part of the reason so much anger is being directed at jep is
because valerie is no longer around to take it out on.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 161 of 357:
|
Jan 15 02:00 UTC 2004 |
In my case, I simply had more invested in jep's item as opposed to
valerie's. I also thought jep's item was one of the better ones on grex
and generated lots of good comments.
|