|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 393 responses total. |
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.
|
cross
|
|
response 161 of 393:
|
Jan 7 21:55 UTC 2004 |
Regarding #149; He was referring to me. This does not induce me to want
to get him an anchovy pizza, though.
|
jep
|
|
response 162 of 393:
|
Jan 7 22:06 UTC 2004 |
I had entered responses in Valerie's items, too. Valerie's items were
linked to parenting, Misti; you could only unlink them from your
conference. You couldn't actually delete them from Grex.
Some of my responses were about topics that weren't exactly about Arlo
and Kendra. There were no other active items in parenting while
Valerie's items were there. Valerie brought up Asperger's Disorder
last summer, and since I am interested in the topic as well, I created
an Asperger's item in parenting. It never got off the ground; the
discussion all stayed in Valerie's item.
I don't mind much that my responses got deleted with the rest of those
items. I doubt if I ever said much of any value.
However... now that the staff has granted Valerie the right to delete
items she entered, I think there *has been* a policy change, and others
who want their items deleted should be able to have them deleted as
well. The staff shouldn't be debating it internally, or asking the
Board, or waiting on the outcome of discussion or a user referendum.
Not now. The policy *has* changed.
I think, by not accommodating user requests, the staff is in danger of
making a second policy change. Staff members are Special People; above
the rules.
|
jep
|
|
response 163 of 393:
|
Jan 7 22:14 UTC 2004 |
Valerie's action changed a lot of things by a large amount. I am
positive she didn't intend that. I am positive there was no bad
intent. Things have gotten out of hand.
I do not mean to be on the side of those who are shrieking, "She broke
the rules! Corruption!" Valerie is not corrupt. I hope this won't
end her contributions as a staff member. She's a very valuable staffer.
I think Valerie made a big mistake. It's just a mistake, but it has a
lot of consequences. We all need to learn from it and move on. I know
what I wrote in resp:162, but nevertheless, the most important thing is
going to be for Grex to not panic or overreact, and for Grex to find a
reasonable course and stick with it.
|
naftee
|
|
response 164 of 393:
|
Jan 7 22:24 UTC 2004 |
I find it interesting that valerie is worried that some people in the baby
diary items had quoted her verbatim and as such, their posts should remain
purged. However, she has neglected to mention that on the m-net agora
conference, some of her work remains, probably in verbatim form! Of course,
she can't bring that argument over there, because it would clearly be seen
for what it is: censorship.
|
cross
|
|
response 165 of 393:
|
Jan 7 22:35 UTC 2004 |
Regarding #162; Just to clarify, staff didn't grant Valerie any extra
`right'. She acted on her own, outside of the rhuebric of staff.
|
jep
|
|
response 166 of 393:
|
Jan 7 22:45 UTC 2004 |
re resp:165: If that's the case, then there's no need for a debate.
The items need to be restored. It couldn't be more straightforward.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 167 of 393:
|
Jan 7 22:45 UTC 2004 |
> 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. <
First of all, does the fw have the *power* to kill an entire item at any time?
If the answer is "yes", then they *can* "when they need to". If this is the
case, then it's a matter of *policy*, what *should* the fw do. Is there
anything documented along these lines? If so, where can we find / read it?
If not, it's probably high time to document something. If there is something
already documented, that could be updated if grexians though it should be.
|