response 14 of 235:

Feb 9 01:34 UTC 2004

If you can find a member to enter such a non-sensical prooposal, sure.

response 16 of 235:

Feb 9 02:52 UTC 2004

UYEAH!

response 18 of 235:

Feb 9 06:08 UTC 2004

 A proposed modification:

      The Grex user who originally enters an item in the Grex   
      conferences may remove that item at any time before a
      response has been made to it from any other user account.
      After any other user account enters a response, any or all 
      text of an item may be removed by a fairwitness or staff only 
      if two or more members of the board or staff determine either 
      that the text to be removed represents an abuse of Grex
      system resources or that failure to remove such text might
      abet criminal activity or reasonably expose Grex to legal 
      liability of either civil or criminal nature.

response 20 of 235:

Feb 9 13:01 UTC 2004

I feel slightly uncomfortable with this because, as fairwitness, I can see
wanting to remove something quickly, before I can get concurrence from someone
else.

For example suppose someone enters an item, then responds to it with a second
login ID.  I have no way of knowing that this is really just one person, but
might still feel urgency to get information off Grex, such as a social
security number or credit card number.  Under this amendment, I'd have to wait
for someone else before I could do anything about it, even if the owner of
the number asked me to remove it.  

Is there some way to word this so that I could act, but the item could be
"saved" pending review by a board or staff member?

response 22 of 235:

Feb 9 15:11 UTC 2004

It was beautiful and fuzzy.

response 24 of 235:

Feb 9 18:23 UTC 2004

Since staff have at least as much power in individual conferences as
the fair witness, it really isn't worthwhile to try to prevent them,
individually and specifically, from using that power.  It is much better
to establish the guidelines and expect _everyone_ to adhere to them.

Yes, it would be _possible_ to word the proposal to require preserving the
removed item pending final approval, but I consider that an implementation
issue better left until after the basic policy is decided.

I don't like other's suggestion partly because of semantics:  anyone
can use the 'scribble' command on text they have entered at any time.
That the text in question is the text of an item is not relevant.

Similarly with jp2's suggestion, it is both an implementation detail
and also a matter of semantics.  This proposal concerns itself primarily
with entire items, which contain the text of several authors.  It really
doesn't address single responses, which would, in my view, continue to
be handled as they always were.

Let us consider a couple of concrete examples.

1)  Someone creates an item that says, "List any credit card numbers you
have found here.  Here's my contribution 1234xxxxyyyyzzzz".  The first
response is a comment that the activity is illegal and a request that
the item be  removed.  At that point, the item author can scribble the text
but not remove the item.  The second response is a list of credit card
numbers.  The third response is a request for removal.  

Under my proposal, the entire item can be removed, by the fair witness or
staff.

2)  Someone makes a response to the "happy" item that contains a credit
card number.

The treatment of this response is not controlled by my proposal, so it
would be handled as it always has been: the single response will be edited
or removed.

3)  Someone enters several items with the exact same text.  Someone else
follows right behind, making the first response a request to remove
the item.  At that point, the item author can scribble the text but not
remove the item.

Under my proposal, the repeated items can be removed, by the fair witness
or staff.

Note that my proposal really does not distinguish who makes the first
reponse.  Even if the item author makes the first response, my proposal
would control.

response 26 of 235:

Feb 9 18:40 UTC 2004

I am not comparing the recent events to credit card fraud.  I am showing how
_this_ proposal would work, in future.

Under this proposal, the items recently removed would still be in place.

response 28 of 235:

Feb 9 19:05 UTC 2004

See example three above, C. S.

response 32 of 235:

Feb 9 21:04 UTC 2004

Re: #29, no, I don't believe that "a majority of the members felt
 Jep and Valerie were in the right to have items they entered removed".
I believe grexers just said that "well, they're already deleted, it's too late
now, let's just accept it and move on".  I don't think that grexers have
agreed that wanton item deletion is acceptable, even if one tries to claim
"a precedent has been set".  Let's just hope that there aren't more rogue
staffers / FW's out there who, having read all these discussions (let's hope),
would still go ahead and kill items for no other reason that what valerie
used.

response 34 of 235:

Feb 9 21:47 UTC 2004

Let's relie on m-net, and screw GreX.

response 38 of 235:

Feb 9 23:31 UTC 2004

re 36 Can we really know that for sure?