|
Grex > Coop12 > #57: Proposal: Users shall be able to withdraw their text | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 24 new of 168 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 145 of 168:
| 
Nov 30 17:23 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
janc
|
|
response 146 of 168:
|
Nov 30 20:22 UTC 2001 |
Re 144: Yes.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 147 of 168:
|
Nov 30 21:33 UTC 2001 |
Shucks, why not chmod 700 ? ;-)
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 148 of 168:
|
Dec 1 18:22 UTC 2001 |
Congratulations!
|
albaugh
|
|
response 149 of 168:
|
Dec 1 22:05 UTC 2001 |
What does the passing of this motion do to Backtalk's function:
View hidden response.
???
|
gelinas
|
|
response 150 of 168:
|
Dec 2 04:21 UTC 2001 |
(Welcome back, Joe. :)
|
janc
|
|
response 151 of 168:
|
Dec 2 04:29 UTC 2001 |
Hi Joe.
Backtalk and Picospan have two degrees of erasure. Their names for them
differ:
PICOSPAN BACKTALK
expurgate hide Don't display the response by default
scribble erase Erase the response
Expurgate was originally called 'censor' but the command name was mostly
changed in the early days of Grex, though the old one leaks through here
and there.
The discussion here has been entirely about the scribble/erase commands.
They now remove text in such a way that nobody but staff can ever see
them again.
The expurgate/censor/hide command has always been just a way to flag the
response to say "you can see this if you want to, but you probably don't
want to". Backtalk even lets you post a response in a hidden state.
Backtalk's "view hidden response" link only appears for "hidden"
responses, not erased responses. It has never been possible to view
erased responses via Backtalk.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 152 of 168:
|
Dec 3 23:04 UTC 2001 |
Thanks!
|
mwg
|
|
response 153 of 168:
|
Dec 14 03:29 UTC 2001 |
And as predicted, not satisfied with a result, the question was beaten
until it won because people realized that it was give in or vote against
it forever. It works for government, so why not here?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 154 of 168:
|
Dec 14 04:32 UTC 2001 |
I don't know about you, but I'm willing to be on the losing side, as long it's
the right side. Every time, no matter how often or for how long.
If the right had lost this time, I'd have still voted for it next time.
|
remmers
|
|
response 155 of 168:
|
Dec 14 14:57 UTC 2001 |
Same here. (Except that in my case, I was on the winning side the
first time and the losing side the second.)
|
gull
|
|
response 156 of 168:
|
Dec 14 16:22 UTC 2001 |
Re #153: Presenting it twice, the second time with clarified wording,
qualifies as beating people with it until they vote for it out of
exasperation? I had no idea most Grexers had so little stamina.
What would you suggest? A rule that once an item is brought up for a
vote once, it can never be addressed again?
|
krj
|
|
response 157 of 168:
|
Dec 14 20:10 UTC 2001 |
I suppose, as the formal mover of the proposal, I'm probably taking
mwg's resp:153 a little too personally. But my analysis of what happened
is somewhat different than mwg's.
Yes (close log) No (keep log readable) total
June 2000 14 19 33
Nov 2001 25 16 41
The vote numbers suggest that few of those who voted for keeping
the log readable changed their minds in the 17 months between
the two votes. (Over a year; it's not like we were voting on this
constantly...) Instead, it seems that eight additional
voters participated this time, and that those new
voters were pretty solid for closing the log.
My own nose counting in the interval between the two votes led me
to expect that result; I talked to enough members who did not
vote in the June 2000 election, either because they had
neglected it or because they were new members, to be pretty sure
that my side had the votes to close the margin in June 2000.
I was pretty sure that the pool of people who wanted the log to
remain open wasn't growing.
So, in summary, I don't think that my side harassed people into
voting a position they didn't believe in, just to stop having to
vote on this issue. I suppose one could argue that a few
people switched votes to stop the endless debate on the question;
I would reply that the fact that the debate never really went away
suggests that the June 2000 election didn't adequately settle
the question. It will be interesting to see if the discussion
now damps down. Those who wish an open censored log could always
try to revote the proposal, say in another year or so.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 158 of 168:
|
Dec 14 21:12 UTC 2001 |
It might be interesting to compare the non-member votes, too. I voted for
closing the log both times, but my vote only counted the second time.
|
krj
|
|
response 159 of 168:
|
Dec 14 22:52 UTC 2001 |
Your wish is my command :)
Non-Member voting:
Yes (close log) No (keep log readable) total
June 2000 57 33 90
Nov 2001 46 5 51
A dramatic falloff in non-member voting, including the near-complete
collapse of "No" support in November 2001. I don't have an explanation.
(June 2000 results from resp:coop11,173,174 (item 173, resp 174)
|
mwg
|
|
response 160 of 168:
|
Jan 15 03:34 UTC 2002 |
(The problem of real life interfering with conferencing, I missed the
whole second vote, and things went wrong, not that one vote would have
mattered, it seems.)
Perhaps I have been crediting people with more observational powers than
are present. I have noticed a trend in real-world elections that those
advocating something either unpopular or unwise or even both will continue
to force the issue to appear in elections until those against it give up
for whatever reasons (lack of patience, sick to death of it, etc.), and
I assumed that those with sense on the issue had decided to give up rather
than wage what would probably be an eternal battle.
This also explains the increasingly terrible state of this country, those
wishing to pass bad laws ot abuse existing laws don't give up, while the
good guys eventually wear out from sheer exhaustion.
As abuse won the day here, I think that the expurgate and scribble
commands should be removed. While ineffective, they were amusing, now
they are just wrong.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 161 of 168:
|
Jan 15 03:57 UTC 2002 |
Mike, the good ones won this one. We stuck it out, we didn't give up, and
the right decision was made. I'm sorry you aren't (on this issue) one of
the good guys. :(
|
gull
|
|
response 162 of 168:
|
Jan 15 16:26 UTC 2002 |
Re #160: So if something is brought up for a vote once, that issue
should never be addressed again?
|
mwg
|
|
response 163 of 168:
|
Jan 16 03:09 UTC 2002 |
Re 161: Gross mis-use of the law is never right.
Re 162: That is actually a more complex question than it seems. A
moratoriam (I'm not sure I spelled that right) for a time should be
considered, but questions need to be re-raised now and then. I have been
sensitized to the issue of abuse of voting processes because so much has
been done by hammering on an issue until the other side got sick to the
teeth of it. This was used in Detroit to force casinos that people didn't
want. A minority group (francophone-primary) in Quebec has been using
this to slowly grind down opposition to making french the primary, and
possibly the only, legal language in that province. I have to admit that
I don't have a clear answer to this. This all does of course assume that
the question was legitimate, I shouldn't have to tell you where I stand on
that.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 164 of 168:
|
Jul 24 23:48 UTC 2002 |
For some reason, I like jp2's legal bull-shit, more than I like pthomas'.
|
jp2
|
|
response 165 of 168:
|
Jul 25 01:18 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
davel
|
|
response 166 of 168:
|
Jul 25 02:12 UTC 2002 |
I doubt it.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 167 of 168:
|
Jul 25 02:44 UTC 2002 |
As your ATTORNEY.. AT LAW, I advise you not to be.
|
jp2
|
|
response 168 of 168:
|
Jul 25 13:37 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|