|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 186 responses total. |
naftee
|
|
response 156 of 186:
| 
Dec 5 04:10 UTC 2003 |
Happy GreX staffers, its funny how you talk about the GreX community changing
in one sentence and in the next one saying how the system rules must never
change.
|
cross
|
|
response 157 of 186:
|
Dec 5 04:40 UTC 2003 |
Regarding #134; I didn't resign staff because I couldn't seperate what I
was doing from who I was doing it for, but rather because the president
of the board of directors specifically encouraged a vandal I had locked
out of the system. She further ignored me whenever I tried to explain
what I had done and why. If I, as staff, couldn't expect the president
of the board to even hear me out, how could I be expected to do my job?
I didn't leave because my feelings got hurt, I left in protest of the
attitude of the president of the board.
|
other
|
|
response 158 of 186:
|
Dec 5 04:44 UTC 2003 |
re:
> b) Is it worth it to make the changes (either in attitudes,
> prices, general content etc) to make other people feel like they
> belong?
> If the answer to either of these questions is No, then this
> discussion need not be pursued further.
Whose attitudes? We're all individuals, and Grex cannot change the
attitudes of any individual, much less the whole community of
individuals.
As for the prices, let's see some specific suggestions, along with
the numbers of members at those rates that it would take to pay the
bills to keep Grex running, and I'd be willing to run an experiment
in which memberships are offered at that rate for one month, and if
the membership income for that month exceeds both the average income
for that month and the average and actual expenses for that month,
then let the experiment continue for as long as it continues to
succeed.
Regarding general content: The entire content of Grex is whatever
any user interested enough to post something makes it. If you want
to post an item you think would be more welcoming, do it! But don't
expect someone else to do it for you, and don't expect anyone else
not to post something because it may not be ideally welcoming and
inclusive.
There is something going on in this discussion which really annoys
me, and I'm surprised no one has commented on it. Jamie has made
some very interesting contributions along with all the annoyance he
has generated, and I have yet to see any remotely reasonable idea he
has presented be ignored simply because it came from him, but the
thing that irks me is that he is being held up as an example of
what's wrong here when what he represents is the idea that the ends
justify the means, and that no matter how flagrantly one violates
the basic rules of this community, if one appears to have good
intentions then it's okay. That is just plain wrong, and no matter
how valuable or interesting the results (and frankly I myself would
like to see some changes made on the basis of those apparent
results), it doesn't change the fact that it is wrong.
Is it really that strange that I doubt the goodness of the
intentions when the methods are so blatantly antisocial?
cross slipped in, and to cross I say: remember, the president is
only for one year, staff is for as long as you choose to do it. If
you can't handle a difference of opinion with someone just because
she's president, you're probably better off getting out. That said,
I'd like to see you give it another shot.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 159 of 186:
|
Dec 5 05:33 UTC 2003 |
And I'm glad to see you speaking up, cross. :)
I've missed you.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 160 of 186:
|
Dec 5 11:36 UTC 2003 |
Re 158> I agree that what Jamie did was wrong. What annoys me is that
whenever we try to discuss the points he brought up about the users
feelings, people revert back to the means he got them and try to gloss
over the fact that his data has some potential. Point in note is your
comment. There's a whole item devoted to his account being locked out.
You can go whine about his means there. No one is justifying his means
in this item (at least I'm not). And I wouldn't like to see the ends
forgotten because of the means he chose to take. We can make some good
happen from his results and I don't want to see that lost.
As for what could be changed, I agree that attitudes are individual
characteristics, prices may be rock bottm (I'm not one ot dictate
prices, I don't know all the costs that go into grex so I couldn't
come up with a air price scheme) and general content changes as it's
up to the users. I don't expect you or me or Mark or the board to
change all that. All I'm saying is recognise that there is a problem,
and you do have some sense of responsibility as a collective to help
change it. I don't expect every user/member to fall in with this idea.
However I would like to see discussions brought up on how we can help
change. I'll be frank here Eric. From all the responses in all the
items in this cf, yours seem the most resistant to the idea. All
you've done is whine about how some elements are vandals and you
haven't gone beyond that. As I said somewhere else, get over the chip
on your shoulder.
"Is it really that strange that I doubt the goodness of the
intentions when the methods are so blatantly antisocial?"
I can understand you ignoring Jamie, polytarp and naftee. But what
have I done that constituted anti-social. In your zeal to prove Jamie
a bad person, you're losing sight of what other people are trying to
do here.
|
mary
|
|
response 161 of 186:
|
Dec 5 12:00 UTC 2003 |
Dan, if you want me to discuss, again, what it was about
your use of staff power that concerned me, I'll do so.
But I'd rather take it to a new item, or the item where
this was discussed, or to mail. The is jp2's campaign item.
|
jp2
|
|
response 162 of 186:
|
Dec 5 13:34 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 163 of 186:
|
Dec 5 15:10 UTC 2003 |
And besides, when has an item on grex ever stayed on topic, without
some drift. Drift... that's what Grex is about.
|
jep
|
|
response 164 of 186:
|
Dec 5 15:56 UTC 2003 |
re resp:162: Jamie, I don't think you have any complaints about the
focusing of this item on accounting, since it's something you brought
up.
This is the item where you're trying to tell people why they should
vote for you. I think it's appropriate for people to ask you about
events in which you've participated or been involved, when those events
might influence how people view you as a candidate.
I think it's right for mynxcat to bring up things you've said in other
items, about Grex's shortcomings and problems, and what you would like
to do about them.
You will have no disagreement from me, though, when you say cross's
issues are inappropriate drift in this item.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 165 of 186:
|
Dec 5 16:27 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 166 of 186:
|
Dec 5 16:36 UTC 2003 |
re 157
> the president of the board of directors specifically encouraged a vandal I
had locked > out of the system.
No, the president did nothing of the sort. You were responsible for that
entirely, by unlocking the dah and polytarp accounts.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 167 of 186:
|
Dec 5 16:39 UTC 2003 |
Actually, I would like to hear Jamie's views on making Grex's
community more diverse. How does he propose we move toward that goal?
|
jp2
|
|
response 168 of 186:
|
Dec 5 16:45 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 169 of 186:
|
Dec 5 19:18 UTC 2003 |
"change is good" - that's just as much a bullshit generality as "change is
bad". Sometimes change is inevitable, regardless of "good" or "bad", but
change is not always for the better. Each proposed change must be evaluated
on its merits, and not automatically embraced just because it *is* change.
|
cross
|
|
response 170 of 186:
|
Dec 5 19:42 UTC 2003 |
Regarding #166; Just for the record, I didn't lock the polytarp account.
|
jp2
|
|
response 171 of 186:
|
Dec 5 20:21 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 172 of 186:
|
Dec 5 23:59 UTC 2003 |
re 170 No, but you did lock the dah account, and mistakenly the asddsa
account. I have no idea why you unlocked the dah account.
|
cross
|
|
response 173 of 186:
|
Dec 6 01:48 UTC 2003 |
Regarding #172; Well, Mary was pretty convinced that I was abusing my
powers. Even though I repeatedly explained my actions and she ignored
my explanations. It was pretty clear we couldn't prevent dah from
logging in, anyway. Somewhere in there, Mary got the horribly mistaken
impression I was willing to turn off newuser---I have no idea how or why,
but she made a comment about it being ``non-negotiable''.
I was also getting some pressure from other members of the board to
step away from the situation. So, I undid what I did and stopped.
Mary continued to insist I had abused my authority (such as it is;
grex staff has no real authority. That all comes from the board and
membership. Grex staff does have discretion to do certain things,
like lock accounts if circumstances dictate---anyway, that's minutea,
and I digress).
I admit; to this day, I'm still pretty perplexed as to what she was
thinking. She never explained herself well, and mostly made sniping
comments about it. I note she asked none of this of Valerie who just
recently did something virtually identical. And indeed, the same board
member who suggested I step away from the dah/naftee issue came down
firmly in support of locking jp2. Also, what Jamie did wasn't even
malicious. What dah did was. From that context, locking jp2's account
was less defensible than locking dah's accounts. When dah logged in
again and again using new logins, I blocked his ISP (though I missed
some of the IP range). I had posted somewhere that no one other than
dah and naftee had logged in from there in over a month, and only two
or three people in the three months prior (at the time I still thought
polytarp and naftee were the same person).
The really funny thing was that polytarp himself (or whatever psuedo he
was using) posted something along the lines of, ``Wow, I intentionally
abuse grex and I get more out of it in return than I had at the time!''
after I unlocked the polytarp account.
I've given up getting anything resembling a sensible statement of her
comments out of Mary, though. This is the third time she's grossly
distorted something I've said or done. The first time, I mentioned that
grex should encourage users logging in *only* for free email to look
elsewhere, and she insinuated that I was suggesting grex shut off email
service. The second time I mentioned casually that my female friends
who had had abortions had often felt emotionally conflicted over their
descisions, and she insinuated I was against abortion and added the
comment, ``my opinion of you just tanked.'' Shesh. I've never seen
someone take random, idle comments and be so vindictive about their
gross misinterpretations of them.
That said, I was touched by how many people asked me to stay on grex
staff. I would do it, but the unfortunate thing is that I have to leave
in less than two months for a ten month stint, during which I will have
only limited access to a computer.
|
sholmes
|
|
response 174 of 186:
|
Dec 6 03:25 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 175 of 186:
|
Dec 6 04:38 UTC 2003 |
re 173
It seems that, apart from mary, you did have a lot of support in locking dah's
account for filling up user partitions. In item 29 of this conference, the
user other both offered constructive criticism towards your actions and yet
commended your efforts, then immediately wrote a few choice words to willcome
(resps 31-33). responses 43 to 72 are mostly willcome complaining about the
mass IP ban, after you had unlocked the naftee account. Responses 76-82 are
more interesting. Willcome gloats after needling you to get his accounts back
and ISPs unbanned, and succeeding, and out of frustration for all the wrong
things, you resign from staff. In short, it's a sad chapter.
|
willcome
|
|
response 176 of 186:
|
Dec 6 05:32 UTC 2003 |
"...both...and yet..." doesn't work.
|
other
|
|
response 177 of 186:
|
Dec 6 07:42 UTC 2003 |
This is a worthwhile discussion and there's a lot more to it yet to be said,
but I think jp2 is right that it doesn't really belong in this item and we
should move it to another. If, when I get to the end of coop, I discover that
a new item has not already been created to continue this, I will create one.
I hope that those of participating in the discussion of cross's activities
on staff and departure therefrom will take up the discussion there.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 178 of 186:
|
Dec 6 12:08 UTC 2003 |
(I think mary pointed out that this was not the right item. jp2 was resigned
to it, or maybe he revelled in the fact his item was hijacked.)
|
jp2
|
|
response 179 of 186:
|
Dec 6 13:23 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 180 of 186:
|
Dec 6 15:53 UTC 2003 |
Politically motivated...as in revenge?
|