|
Grex > Coop13 > #111: A Proposal to Clarify Grex's Stance on Deleting Items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 235 responses total. |
gelinas
|
|
response 179 of 235:
| 
Mar 10 01:37 UTC 2004 |
Valerie's actions got put up for a vote because there was no clear guidance
on what to do. This proposal would provide that guidance, should there be
another occurrence.
|
rational
|
|
response 180 of 235:
|
Mar 10 01:49 UTC 2004 |
Did you know testicles come from the same stuff as ovaries?
|
jp2
|
|
response 181 of 235:
|
Mar 10 02:06 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 182 of 235:
|
Mar 10 02:14 UTC 2004 |
At least the "status quo" would be recognised.
|
tod
|
|
response 183 of 235:
|
Mar 10 18:06 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 184 of 235:
|
Mar 10 20:36 UTC 2004 |
Really? You'd rather vote for a proposal that authors can remove items at
any time? Interesting.
Perhaps it's time to think aobut what you want and what you can get.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 185 of 235:
|
Mar 10 21:08 UTC 2004 |
> There was not agreement that the material should not have been removed.
That is absolute crap - unless you are going to claim that a couple of
nutcases unable to comprehend what everyone else acknowledged constitutes "not
agreement". I don't wish to dredge things up, but I'm not going to sit by
and let revisionist history go unchallenged. What the disagreement was about
was re: the items, wrongfully removed, should be restored. The voters spoke.
|
tod
|
|
response 186 of 235:
|
Mar 10 21:11 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 187 of 235:
|
Mar 10 21:15 UTC 2004 |
I think it ended up more SOL than SOP... ;-)
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 188 of 235:
|
Mar 10 21:25 UTC 2004 |
Sorry albaugh, from my point of view there was not AGREEMENT that the material
should not have been removed. I thought that the fairwitness had the power
to make the decision and remove the material. Valerie used her staff powers
to do something she couldn't do as a user. But I always thought that if she
had just been patient enough to ask the FW to do it, we would not have gotten
embroiled in this mess.
|
tod
|
|
response 189 of 235:
|
Mar 10 21:31 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 190 of 235:
|
Mar 10 21:34 UTC 2004 |
Despite albaugh's revisionism, not removing items was NOT SOP. It may
not have been done very often, but *some* people thought items _could_
be removed. I was one of them.
The disagreement persists: I _still_ think items can be removed.
(But I'm not going to remove any as things stand now.) Convince me I'm
wrong: approve this proposal.
|
tod
|
|
response 191 of 235:
|
Mar 10 21:41 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 192 of 235:
|
Mar 10 21:48 UTC 2004 |
If the Item is not one that should be removed, never.
|
salad
|
|
response 193 of 235:
|
Mar 10 22:12 UTC 2004 |
There was no reason why those items should have been removed.
|
tod
|
|
response 194 of 235:
|
Mar 10 22:12 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 195 of 235:
|
Mar 10 22:35 UTC 2004 |
I don't see a difference between "staff guidelines" and "expectations
for end users."
This proposal is about the expectations OF the users and members of the
community (for lack of a better word). Staff are expected to comply with
the EXPRESSED desires of the users and members.
(Like the First Law of Robotics: A robot cannot _knowingly_ harm a human
being or, by inaction, allow a human to come to harm.)
|
tod
|
|
response 196 of 235:
|
Mar 10 23:16 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 197 of 235:
|
Mar 11 18:45 UTC 2004 |
Let me be more precise, then, for the slow to comprehend: There was
widespread agreement that the items should *not* have been removed in the
manner they were. There could have been a thoughtful debate on whether such
items could / should be removed, but it was moot: valerie preempted any such
discussions. Anyone who maintains that valerie was justified to abuse her
staff capabilities to remove the items because there might have been agreement
by grexers that it would be OK to remove such items (e.g. by a FW) is full
of crap. It is true that there was insufficient outrage etc. by grexers to
undo the harm, as witnessed by the vote to restore the items failing. But
to mix it all together and say it's all the same thing is dishonest.
|
twenex
|
|
response 198 of 235:
|
Mar 11 18:46 UTC 2004 |
Agreed. I think.
|
tod
|
|
response 199 of 235:
|
Mar 11 18:51 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 200 of 235:
|
Mar 11 18:52 UTC 2004 |
Good point.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 201 of 235:
|
Mar 11 18:58 UTC 2004 |
Find it as disengenuous as you want. There is no other mechanism on grex to
determine "what the users want" than the vote program. Discussions were held
up the wazoo, most people decided "leave it alone". They just reaffirmed that
position. Time to move on to the next outrage...
|
rational
|
|
response 202 of 235:
|
Mar 11 20:03 UTC 2004 |
Re. 197: T hat is for the subset of people actually reading and discussing
it in coop. Less than half the people did that; the rest voted based solely
on Ms Mates's lie-ridden E-mail.
|
tod
|
|
response 203 of 235:
|
Mar 11 20:24 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|