|
Grex > Coop13 > #75: Member Initative: Restore the Murdered Items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 424 responses total. |
cmcgee
|
|
response 146 of 424:
| 
Jan 13 18:46 UTC 2004 |
Great. I always vote to let software do the tedious, rote stuff.
|
keesan
|
|
response 147 of 424:
|
Jan 13 20:06 UTC 2004 |
Has everyone who posted in those two items been reading coop? There might
be people who are not following this discussion who don't mind their responses
being deleted along with jep's.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 148 of 424:
|
Jan 13 20:40 UTC 2004 |
Not knowing the names of everyone who responded to JEP's items, I can't
answer your question, Sindi.
|
tod
|
|
response 149 of 424:
|
Jan 13 20:59 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 150 of 424:
|
Jan 13 21:55 UTC 2004 |
Re #130: No, I'm saying that if a staff member goes rogue again, they
should do it with the understanding that all will be for
naught, and any items they remove will be restored from
backup as soon as is practical. I don't believe that what
Valerie did was okay, and as a consequence I don't believe
we should let it stand.
Since I also believe that the person who entered a response
has the right to remove their own words, and since I agree
that this crap has made your items high-profile, I think it's
completely reasonable to take your responses out of the items
before they're reopened to public view. I support that.
|
naftee
|
|
response 151 of 424:
|
Jan 13 22:20 UTC 2004 |
re 145 It's not too different. Anyone of average computer skills can figure
it out.
|
tod
|
|
response 152 of 424:
|
Jan 13 23:52 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
willcome
|
|
response 153 of 424:
|
Jan 13 23:53 UTC 2004 |
Personally, I'd support a staff member deleting all the items just to force
the issue.
|
richard
|
|
response 154 of 424:
|
Jan 14 02:42 UTC 2004 |
remmers idea has merit, but it should be done not just with JEP's items but
with valerie's baby diary items as well. That was a long diary and a lot of
people invested time and effort in posting to it. They have the right to
decide if they want their posts in those items to stay posted. Granted,
Valerie's baby diary without Valerie's posts would look a bit strange, but
it is still the point of the matter
|
aruba
|
|
response 155 of 424:
|
Jan 14 02:51 UTC 2004 |
I think if you invest a lot of time in something you write, you should save
a copy yourself and not expect that Grex will always be publishing it for
you.
|
richard
|
|
response 156 of 424:
|
Jan 14 03:02 UTC 2004 |
I disagree Aruba, Grex keeps its old conferences online. Up until now, any
user should have had the reasonable expectation that their posts would stay
posted for so long as Grex maintains its current conferencing system and
policies against deleting old conferences. This isn't about users being
able to have their own copies of items and posts, its about users
taking the time and effort to post thinking their comments would remain
publicly posted, and then having other users delete their posts to protect
their own personal interests. Its a matter of fairness and not letting
one user impose their needs or rights over the needs and rights of others.
|
aruba
|
|
response 157 of 424:
|
Jan 14 03:07 UTC 2004 |
Do you expect that Grex will exist forever? Do you expect there never to
be a disk crash? Do you think you have a right to always expect that
there will be people willing to do the increasingly crappy job of
administering Grex, when all they are paid in is vitiol?
If it's important to you, if it's such a magnificent work of art, you
should keep a copy.
|
richard
|
|
response 158 of 424:
|
Jan 14 03:16 UTC 2004 |
no aruba of course not, but expectations regarding staff and grex's hardware
are one thing. Expectations of what individual users will do is quite
another. Users posting to Grex have every right to expect that staff will
enforce grex's principles of being an open bbs and won't allow other users
to delete their posts over their own personal issues.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 159 of 424:
|
Jan 14 10:20 UTC 2004 |
It was a staff member that did the deleting, not a user.
|
aruba
|
|
response 160 of 424:
|
Jan 14 12:53 UTC 2004 |
But the point is, Richard, you keep saying that your valuable work has been
ripped away from you. If it was so valuable, why didn't you keep a copy?
|
remmers
|
|
response 161 of 424:
|
Jan 14 13:08 UTC 2004 |
No, Grex doesn't have an obligation to publish people's writings forever.
Conferences are restarted; old conferences might need to be taken offline
to free up disk space.
But those things should be done with reasonable notice, so that people have
an opportunity to save what they want to keep. That was not the case with
the items under discussion.
|
naftee
|
|
response 162 of 424:
|
Jan 14 14:31 UTC 2004 |
re 157 As was stated before, this isn't a case of a conference being retired.
There was no hardware-related issue that caused the items to be deleted.
|
aruba
|
|
response 163 of 424:
|
Jan 14 15:04 UTC 2004 |
Disk crashes don't happen with advanced notice.
|
carson
|
|
response 164 of 424:
|
Jan 14 15:32 UTC 2004 |
(disk crashes [usually] aren't retrievable, either, yet every effort is
made to restore when that happens, right?)
|
aruba
|
|
response 165 of 424:
|
Jan 14 15:40 UTC 2004 |
Whenever you put anything on Grex, you are trusting the staff not to delete
it. That's the simple truth. Grex exists only because of this trust.
I make no excuses for what Valerie did. I'm pretty angry at her for it.
Not because I think the text in the items she deleted was essential to
Grex, but because she damaged the relationship of trust between the users
and the staff. I think the loss of her, and of all her past responses, is
a much bigger blow to Grex than the loss of 6 items.
But you can pass all the resolutions in the world - make a rule against
deleting anything, restore the items that were deleted - whatever. It's not
going to change the fact that you *have* to trust the staff if you put
anything you think is valuable on Grex.
I'm starting to think that maybe I made a mistake, all these years, trying
to be consciencious about Grex's finances. I think maybe I gave people
the incorrect impression that they should expect Grex to be run like a
professional organization. And thus they feel righteous indignation when
it turns out not to be so.
We all feel betrayed - that's what this is all about for those of us who
give a damn. (There are others here who are just playing games - I don't
care what it's about for them.) We learned that one of our staffers was
human, and had a limit to how much abuse she could take before she cracked
and did something bad. I guess that's a hard lesson to learn - kind of
like a little kid finding out his parents aren't gods after all.
Keep in mind that the only reasons to do work for Grex are a) out of a
sense of duty and obligation, b) because one feels appreciated and
useful, and c) because one believes in the charitable mission of Grex.
When Grex seems to be mostly a forum for people yelling at each other,
it's hard to believe in the charitable mission. So if one doesn't feel
appreciated, that leaves only a sense of duty, which will only get you so
far. Because we all have duties to lots of different things.
So keep in mind, when you're making rules and demands that basically say,
"we can't trust the staff", that you *have* to trust the staff. The only
alternative is to never put anything valuable on Grex. And if all anyone
ever put on Grex was crap, what would be the point in keeping it going?
|
other
|
|
response 166 of 424:
|
Jan 14 16:35 UTC 2004 |
Damn! They ARE turning Grex into M-Net!
|
jp2
|
|
response 167 of 424:
|
Jan 14 16:51 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
keesan
|
|
response 168 of 424:
|
Jan 14 17:39 UTC 2004 |
My primary purpose in posting to jep's items was to help jep. If he thinks
it will help him to delete my postings, that is fine with me. Are there
people who posted there for some reason other than to help jep?
If not, why would they object to having the entire items deleted?
Valerie's items are a different case and I think the non-Valerie parts of it
could be restored without hurting anyone. But if they make her feel bad, I
also think people should be willing to delete them.
But not required to do so.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 169 of 424:
|
Jan 14 17:53 UTC 2004 |
My posts in jep's item were not just for his benefit but for others in similar
situations. I object vehemently to their removal. However, I would probably
be willing to edit any portions that contain quotes ascribed to him, if in
fact I did so.
|
slynne
|
|
response 170 of 424:
|
Jan 14 18:11 UTC 2004 |
I dont think they'll be of much benefit to anyone after jep's posts and
the posts of those people who are willing to have them removed have
been purged from it.
I would really hope that you would reconsider your position about
voluntarily removing your posts. Sure, your position that things you
wrote shouldnt be removed without permission is totally correct. I
completely agree with you on that. However, there are real people
involved here. And even though their reactions might seem extreme, I
still think that there is no harm in respecting their wishes here.
Perhaps you would consider deleting your posts from jep's divorce item
and then re-posting them into an item of their own that doesnt
reference jep's particular case. That way it really can be a benefit
for others in a similar situation. I dont remember specifically what
you wrote, cyklone, but I seem to remember that you did have some good
things to say.
|