|
Grex > Coop13 > #75: Member Initative: Restore the Murdered Items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 424 responses total. |
cyklone
|
|
response 181 of 424:
| 
Jan 20 00:40 UTC 2004 |
Bad analogy. What is going on here is more a case of a collected work
where some authors would like it to go out of print and the remaining
authors wish to continue printing with the unwilling authors' works
removed.
|
krj
|
|
response 182 of 424:
|
Jan 20 01:30 UTC 2004 |
So where's the censorship? No one has stopped you from writing anything.
If what you wrote a year or more ago had any enduring value to you,
why didn't you keep a file copy of your comments?
There are large warnings in various places that
Grex is not to be relied upon for safe file keeping.
I think the "censorship!" charge is way overblown in this situation.
|
naftee
|
|
response 183 of 424:
|
Jan 20 01:44 UTC 2004 |
Sir, the staff worked extremely hard to bring back GreX's email, which could
have been lost. It seems to me they would work hard if one of GreX's hard
disks failed and some of the content on the bbs was removed. But like we said
before, this is not a hardware issue. A GreX staffer removed text from the
bbs that wasn't hers. How would you like it if the staff removed your mail?
Surely, they aren't responsible for it.
But the staff won't do this, and for good reason. Just as they won't remove
items at random from the bbs.
I think the censorship charge is justified in this situation.
|
willcome
|
|
response 184 of 424:
|
Jan 20 01:58 UTC 2004 |
Re. 182: It's rather cynical, I think, to delete someone's work because of
content years after it was posted and not call it censorship. Do you really
think it's reasonable to expect people to keep everything they write and be
prepared to republish it when it's deleted? And, of course, censorship isn't
reliant on content being of any value, let alone important enough to do what
you sugeST.!!
|
cyklone
|
|
response 185 of 424:
|
Jan 20 02:27 UTC 2004 |
Yeah, krj is ducking an obvious issue by throwing up red herrings. The value
of a post does not depend on whether or not the poster chooses to save it.
I could have all my items posts saved yet deletion still removes them from
the original context which others may find beneficial.
|
aruba
|
|
response 186 of 424:
|
Jan 20 23:46 UTC 2004 |
I think Ken's points are very good ones. The fact that some authors of a
collected work want some organization to publish it doesn't oblige that
organization to comply, nor does letting it go out of print constitute
censorship.
|
tod
|
|
response 187 of 424:
|
Jan 20 23:56 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 188 of 424:
|
Jan 21 00:06 UTC 2004 |
Re #186: It depends on what the practices have been up to that point, and
what the expectations are. I think you'd agree that there was
an expectation here that items stick around.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 189 of 424:
|
Jan 21 00:56 UTC 2004 |
Even more blatantly disingenuous is to equate allowing staff to violate a
professed policy in favor of free and uncensored free speech (while
granting a "personal favor to a favored person") with a system crash or
other inadvertent loss of text. I also like how suddenly grex is being
described as some anonymous "organization" which may or may not have
policies about censorship.
It's one thing if the New York Times sells out all its back issues and
declines to make copies. It is a much different thing if the editor sneaks
into the warehouse late at night and torches all the back issues. Guess
which analogy more closely fits Grex? Just come clean folks. Quit the
mental masturbation and intellectual gymnastics and admit your want to do
a personal favor for a favored person.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 190 of 424:
|
Jan 21 03:12 UTC 2004 |
Don't make the mistake of believing that all the Grexers you're talking to
are in agreement on this issue. I might be remembering wrong, but my
recollection is that aruba does not think that what Valerie did was okay.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 191 of 424:
|
Jan 21 03:28 UTC 2004 |
(And others have changed their minds.)
|
cyklone
|
|
response 192 of 424:
|
Jan 21 03:56 UTC 2004 |
Of course I do not mean to generalize, and I do hope more level heads on
grex prevail. I am responding to those who are twisting logic into shapes
not even a pretzel would recognize. Unfortunately, some of those posters
are people I expect better from . . . .
Re #190: But I get the feeling he doesn't want to reinstate jep's item. I
strongly believe those items should not get a pass just because he is once
removed from the acts of valerie. Again, it's like getting too much money
from the teller. I may not have any legal liability but I still give the
money back. Jep should not be trying to benefit from valerie's wrongful
acts at the expense of free and uncensored speech. The items should be
returned to grex.
|
naftee
|
|
response 193 of 424:
|
Jan 21 04:29 UTC 2004 |
Yeah I agree. It's actually an insult to the staff to say that if there's
a disk failure, they're not responsible for any lost content and won't do
anything about it, tough shit, etc. etc., when they worked EXTREMELY hard to
recover mail from the failed mail disk. They could have just forgotten about
that now, couldn't they?
But of course, saying that someone willfully deleting files is the same as
a hardware failure is patently ridiculous.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 194 of 424:
|
Jan 21 06:50 UTC 2004 |
Re#192 and others: Briefly digressing from festivities...
Ultimately, the heads that will prevail in this matter are those of the
members who bother to vote on the current proposals. Whether they are
level will depend on your view of things and on which way the votes go.
You amongst several others seem hell-bent on browbeating jep into
admitting he is wrong and that all of this is his fault. In the
processing of doing so, I think you are confusing the fact that you
disagree with his view and the fact that you don't like that he even
asked that they be removed with some notion that jep had any authority
in this matter or responsibility for them having actually been deleted.
jep can ask until he's blue in the face but he is not responsible for
them having been removed in any way relevant to official procedures
on grex. Valerie made the call, deleted the items and in doing so
assumed responsibility for the act.
Staff receive ridiculous threats, requests, commands and demands everyday.
Part of their job is to try sorting through all of that and make
judgement calls on which should be actioned, which should be ignored,
and what should deferred to the membership or board for resolution.
Now if you are arguing that jep had some moral responsibility to not make
the request, he might counter that he has a greater moral responsibility
to protect what he sees as a threat to his family. Fine, whatever.
Pick your priorities, chose a side and argue away but that's his opinion
versus yours and the results of such a debate still in no way makes jep
responsible for Valerie's actions.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 195 of 424:
|
Jan 21 13:22 UTC 2004 |
You are missing the point, then. I do understand the difference between jep's
request and valerie's actions. What I would like made clear to voters is that
they are participating in an ad hoc process in which a user such as jep can
make a request, the granting of which directly contradicts grex's professed
dedication to free and uncensored speech. In such cases I would submit the
person making the request has a very high burden to show harm that outweighs
the harms to grex's professed principles. Jep has not even remotely met that
burden. And the "personal favors for favored persons" crowd has been offering
up justifications that are contradicted BY JEP'S OWN WORDS!
|
jp2
|
|
response 196 of 424:
|
Jan 21 14:17 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 197 of 424:
|
Jan 21 14:19 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 198 of 424:
|
Jan 21 14:20 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 199 of 424:
|
Jan 21 14:22 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 200 of 424:
|
Jan 21 14:24 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 201 of 424:
|
Jan 21 14:45 UTC 2004 |
I'm impressed with how official-looking it is, at least...
|
jp2
|
|
response 202 of 424:
|
Jan 21 14:52 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 203 of 424:
|
Jan 21 16:14 UTC 2004 |
I would like to ask the Board to clarify the precedent of member
proposals before either this proposal, or my proposal as outlined in
item:76, are voted on. This proposal and my proposal will be voted on
at the same time, and will conflict with one another. I think it is
necessary to make it clear which will override the other before either
or both are presented to the membership for a decision.
I hope jp2 will agree with me on my request, and agree to have his
proposal, along with mine, postponed until that determination is made.
I hope all participating parties will see this as a reasonable
request. My intent is to keep from having to have another round of
user proposals, which is what will happen, I think, if two proposals
are passed at the same time which directly contradict one another.
|
jp2
|
|
response 204 of 424:
|
Jan 21 16:37 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 205 of 424:
|
Jan 21 16:52 UTC 2004 |
There is no established precedent of which I am aware on Grex for
two or more conflicting proposals with simultaneous or overlapping
voting periods, so here is the most basic logical approach I can
think of:
1) Assuming there is no specific timeline for implementation of the
proposal included within it (or any of them) they should be
implemented in chronological order of the determination of the
outcomes of voting. However, in the interests of resource
conservation, implementation should be delayed until the outcome of
the final resolution is determined. In other words, if three
potentially conflicting resolutions are in process simultaneously,
then implementation should be done in order but after all three are
determined. This way, the end result is the same as it would
otherwise be, but the minimum of doing and undoing is undertaken.
2) If the proposals incorporate implementation timelines, then those
timelines should be observed as closely as is reasonably possible
considering that such implementation is dependent on the efforts of
volunteers whose priorities do not necessarily allow Grex member
resolutions to take absolute precedence.
3) If some proposals include timelines and some do not, then the
approach should be 2) where applicable and 1) where applicable,
though in practical terms it should be expected that the overall end
result is likely to resemble 1) a lot more than 2).
|