|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 393 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 190 of 393:
| 
Jan 8 13:59 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
sholmes
|
|
response 191 of 393:
|
Jan 8 14:01 UTC 2004 |
They can delete in their own sweet time , it's not a paid job.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 192 of 393:
|
Jan 8 14:02 UTC 2004 |
Yes, there were other people's responses in jep's items.
Who is "they"? Did you notice Mary's response on the subject?
|
sholmes
|
|
response 193 of 393:
|
Jan 8 14:05 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 194 of 393:
|
Jan 8 14:13 UTC 2004 |
It sounds like valerie felt more strongly about people (maybe only
certain people, since the deletions appear to have been selective)
having the ability to delete whole items than she did about keeping her
position. That's her choice. I think she was an excellent staff member
right up until she decided her own opinions were more important than policy.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 195 of 393:
|
Jan 8 16:46 UTC 2004 |
> Had Misti granted Valerie's wish then we'd also be telling Misti she erred.
Some of us, at least. She's given the kill command to use for very special
occasions <
I have seen that notion here and there, and have no reason to disbelive it.
However, I would really like to so where this is *documented* policy.
I think this and similar policies should be freely accessible by all grex
users at any time, so that those who wish to can know what the rules are,
what they're getting themselves into. :-) Can someone paste in the
documented policy, or give a grex command, or a URL?
|
krj
|
|
response 196 of 393:
|
Jan 8 17:23 UTC 2004 |
Clearly the best way to read Grex in the future will be to log
everything read in BBS to your local machine, since one now has to
expect that huge chunks of the discussion will be destroyed at
any time.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 197 of 393:
|
Jan 8 17:33 UTC 2004 |
I disagree with Mary that we'd be telling Misti she erred.
As I understand Grex's policy, it's up to the people in the conference to
discuss the fw's decision. If the people in the conference can come to
consensus, that's what happens in that conference.
|
flem
|
|
response 198 of 393:
|
Jan 8 17:45 UTC 2004 |
> Valerie, knowing of this lack of consensus, plunged ahead, deleting
> whole items on the request of a specific. She then resigned.
<shocked silence>
Oh my god. I hope someone changed the root password(s).
Seriously, I feel this is a security breech on the order of a root
breakin. Shame on you, Valerie. You've spent how many years protecting
Grex from vandals, and now you're the worst vandal Grex has ever had.
|
jep
|
|
response 199 of 393:
|
Jan 8 18:16 UTC 2004 |
This morning, I tried to explain about why I asked staff to delete my
items.
As I told Valerie, it is not because I wanted to make a point or
anything like that. It's because there was a lot of stuff in those
items which could have really hurt me It was used to do so at least
once. There was stuff which could have hurt my son.
I knew I could come to regret all that stuff when I entered it, but at
the time, my state of mind was such that I just didn't care.
Eventually I came to care, but there was nothing I could do about it
any more.
Then this all happened, and it gave me the chance to have those items
removed.
I don't think, as a general rule, items should be removed, but I think
mine were a worthwhile exception. I am sure Valerie thinks hers were,
too. Obviously others are going to say the same thing.
If items are going to be restored, I hope, expect and ask that mine
will be excluded. If mine are restored, I will take such action as I
find reasonable, effective and possible to keep them from remaining or
being usable.
|
kip
|
|
response 200 of 393:
|
Jan 8 18:25 UTC 2004 |
jep, did you not read item 71 in coop? I think if you really really want to
do that, Valerie has already given you a tool.
Personally, I'm still undecided about the issue of allowing deletions, but
I must admit to feeling sympathy for Valerie's situation.
Those of you who have fun poking holes at staffers, feel free to poke away.
|
jep
|
|
response 201 of 393:
|
Jan 8 18:32 UTC 2004 |
I also wanted to discuss policy implications.
You can't go backward. There have now been circumstances under which a
root staff member will delete whole items on request from an item
enterer. It's obvious to everyone, now, that it *can* be done because
it *has*. When I asked for my items to be removed, I argued that the
precedent had already been set. Others are going to do that, too.
Overall, I think it would be better for Grex if it hadn't happened.
Personally, for myself, I am mightily relieved, though.
Please be aware, you cannot just restore all the items and have
everything be where it was a few days ago. Now that my items have been
removed, if they're restored, I will take it as a dangerous action
against me. Actions cannot be undone. The consequences exist already
for what has happened. Only new, future actions can be taken.
I think now there *has* to be some difference in policy. I think you
can't just stop after Valerie the former president and root has gotten
to do it, and then John the longtime Grexer. I think there has to be
some room for an exception when it's warranted, and some recognition
that sometimes it *is* warranted. There has to be some way to do this
without a firestorm of debate every time.
|
jep
|
|
response 202 of 393:
|
Jan 8 18:34 UTC 2004 |
re resp:200: Kip, you must have received my e-mails to staff. The
first, where I requested my items be deleted, was sent two days ago.
There was no such tool then.
|
kip
|
|
response 203 of 393:
|
Jan 8 18:48 UTC 2004 |
I did receive your email. I didn't feel qualified to respond to it as I
didn't know the policy by heart. And yes the tool is new, I'm just mentioning
it because I was under the impression you might have missed the item.
I too want to discuss the policy implications and agree that no rule exists
that doesn't merit some exception from time to time. And trying to craft a
rule to justify the past actions and moderate the new actions is a little more
difficult than I can do right now in the middle of my regular work day.
|
krj
|
|
response 204 of 393:
|
Jan 8 19:29 UTC 2004 |
So, the new policy is, Free Speech Until Somebody Feels Bad.
|
jp2
|
|
response 205 of 393:
|
Jan 8 19:30 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 206 of 393:
|
Jan 8 19:31 UTC 2004 |
Oh, and the other new policy:
I Own Your Comments About Me.
|
jep
|
|
response 207 of 393:
|
Jan 8 19:35 UTC 2004 |
I don't think we know what the new policy is, or is going to be.
Things are really mixed up right now, but they won't be forever.
|
jp2
|
|
response 208 of 393:
|
Jan 8 19:39 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 209 of 393:
|
Jan 8 20:03 UTC 2004 |
Valerie's tool only automates the scribbling of your own responses,
something people have always been able to do. Whan Valerie did, and
what jep asked to have done for him, is the removal of entire items,
including other users' comments. That's a different matter. Basically,
it means Grex discussions are now temporary, and can go away as soon as
the item author is no longer pleased with the direction the item has
taken. I find that troubling.
|
remmers
|
|
response 210 of 393:
|
Jan 8 21:25 UTC 2004 |
In my view, and speaking as a Grex staff member, I don't believe
that "deletion of an item on poster's request" is Grex policy,
despite the fact that a couple of staff members thought that it
was, and one actually acted as if it was.
Albaugh has a point about fairwitness powers. Fairwitnesses have
the power to delete items, and to the best of my knowledge there
is no Grex policy that says they can't. On the flip side of that
coin, there is no policy that says they have to on request, either.
There's feeling among many users, myself included, that in general
it's a bad idea to censor items, but that doesn't make it policy.
So if the FWs of the conferences containing Valerie's items had
killed them on her request, there would have been no violation of
any written policy that I'm aware of.
There would have been some vigorous and in my view highly justified
disatisfaction with the fw's. But not any breaking of rules that I
can see.
My main concern about all this was stopping the idea that "users can
delete any item they've posted" was some kind of system-wide policy.
It isn't, never has been, and in my view never should be.
|
gull
|
|
response 211 of 393:
|
Jan 8 21:48 UTC 2004 |
It seems to be rapidly becoming a de-facto policy.
|
aruba
|
|
response 212 of 393:
|
Jan 8 21:51 UTC 2004 |
No, that's not true at all, David.
|
davel
|
|
response 213 of 393:
|
Jan 8 22:00 UTC 2004 |
Re 198:
Um, Greg, that's pretty extreme. It was an abuse of root privileges, & should
not have been done. But removal of one item making her "the worst vandal
Grex has ever had"? Give me a break. There have been remarkably few really
*serious* vandal incidents on Grex, but I can remember a few.
|
krj
|
|
response 214 of 393:
|
Jan 8 22:09 UTC 2004 |
It's not the removal of one item; it's the removal of all of her
pieces in all discussions over 12 years. I find the word "vandalism"
appropriate.
|