|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 393 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 239 of 393:
| 
Jan 9 14:11 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 240 of 393:
|
Jan 9 14:35 UTC 2004 |
Some users are more equal than others, jp2.
|
kip
|
|
response 241 of 393:
|
Jan 9 14:40 UTC 2004 |
Here's an answer for you then. I, as just one member of staff, am opposed
to deleting item 39 in the co-op 13 conference because it involved a policy
discussion.
This is my personal opinion and is open to change with appropriate discussion.
|
jep
|
|
response 242 of 393:
|
Jan 9 14:54 UTC 2004 |
Yes, Jamie; there is a debate going on about the appropriateness of
fulfilling such requests.
re resp:238: You have my permission to post anything I wrote in any of
my messages which reached staff regarding this issue.
Joe, there are a lot of ways to interpret what happened this week. I
interpreted Valerie's actions in a way that would allow me to call for
my items to be deleted, too.
I regret some of the policy implications which this may have had. I
knew of those implications when I did what I did, and also I brought
them up here before I made my request.
I don't regret getting my items deleted. I'll be very vehemently
opposed to any possibility that they may be restored.
I don't think the staff, or the Board, or myself, have done anything
unethical.
|
jp2
|
|
response 243 of 393:
|
Jan 9 15:00 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 244 of 393:
|
Jan 9 15:23 UTC 2004 |
I'm surprised she didn't leave before...this is how grex operates.
Something goes down and everyone immediately goes into attack mode.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 245 of 393:
|
Jan 9 15:49 UTC 2004 |
I asked that my items be removed, and the response I got from party
was that I needed to find a staff member who was willing to lose their
staff position to delete them for me.
It is most unfair that jep is allowed to use the "but Valerie did it"
argument, and the rest of us have to have it debated. I guess Valerie
just went ahead and deleted them, because a)Having done something like
that herself (for lesser grounds), she was really in no position to
deny that to another user and b)She was leaving anyways, policy really
didn't matter to her, at that point.
I believe that jep did have a more legitimate reason to delete his
items, as compared to Valerie, though I'm sure she thinks otherwise.
Likewise, at least a few people will feel that they have valid reasons
to have their items deleted. Hell, I told all of grex, I was
overweight. I want to erase that from the system. Where exactly are we
going to draw the line on what a legitimate reason is to delete an
item.
Or we have to live with the response "You missed the bus. Should have
got Valerie to do it before she left. Or get another staffer who
doesn't mind being kicked off of staff".
Basically it's true, some members are more equal than others.
|
other
|
|
response 246 of 393:
|
Jan 9 16:08 UTC 2004 |
You are smart enough to know that your conclusion does not follow
from your premise.
|
flem
|
|
response 247 of 393:
|
Jan 9 16:10 UTC 2004 |
I stand behind my use of the term vandalism. I fail to see how this
situation is any different than if polytarp had hacked into grex and
deleted the items in question.
Jep, I consider you a vandal, too, just as much as if you had begged
polytarp to hack into grex and delete the items.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 248 of 393:
|
Jan 9 16:18 UTC 2004 |
The last statement I made was not a conclusion. You're right, it
doesn't follow from the premise, or the analysis.
It's what I believe.
|
slynne
|
|
response 249 of 393:
|
Jan 9 16:56 UTC 2004 |
mynxcat. I know exactly why you might feel the way you do. I wish there
was something I could do to make you feel more included and part of
things here.
The thing of it is that all groups, including grex, consist of people
with normal human characteristics. It is normal for people to have
biases towards people they like and consider part of their social
group. Of course grex has cliques. All large groups have smaller groups
contained in them. This is human nature. I will say that at the very
least, most people here really do try to be as inclusive as possible.
I can see why you might see this business of folks favoring valerie and
jep over others who have requested item deletions. But please recognize
that valerie's actions were hers alone and not official policy. And
while I admit that I dont personally hold it against her that she
deleted the baby items or jep's items, I do recognize that feeling
comes from my personal feelings about them.
|
keesan
|
|
response 250 of 393:
|
Jan 9 17:16 UTC 2004 |
I'm sure mynxcat is not the only overweight member of grex. I am underweight,
can I delete all my items too? There is one about eating off dishes and
someone might think eating off dishes makes you lose weight.
|
other
|
|
response 251 of 393:
|
Jan 9 17:18 UTC 2004 |
Sindi, are you sure you're not trying to parody yourself?
|
albaugh
|
|
response 252 of 393:
|
Jan 9 17:23 UTC 2004 |
From #235: >> Oh yeah, I'm completely opposed to any policy that says the item
author can always kill an item with responses from others in it.
That Valerie and Jep were the ones who started these items is pretty
much incidental. The thing that distinguishes those items is that they
were the effective leaders of the discussions and the primary subjects
of the discussion. The fact that they entered the original item is the
very least part of what made the items "theirs".<<
That's very interesting, because consider this: What if someone entered an
item to discuss another person, perhaps in a very mean-spirited way.
Would the "victim" of that item, who is not the one who entered it, be able
to have a fw or staff kill that item at the victim's request?
|
albaugh
|
|
response 253 of 393:
|
Jan 9 17:25 UTC 2004 |
In case you were wondering:
help kill
**** KILL ****
kill (f-w and item author) -- delete the entire item.
help retire
**** RETIRE ****
retire -- mark this item as "retired" so it won't appear in
future "all" item-ranges. (f-w and item author only)
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 254 of 393:
|
Jan 9 17:38 UTC 2004 |
resp:252 I guess it depends, doesn't it. Several years ago, someone
went onto my account as me (i know who they are) and had a conversation
with another individual that revealed some very sensitive information.
The other user was so annyoed at what the person said, thinking it was
me, that they copied the material, posted it in agora and left grex.
That item was killed per my request.
|
gull
|
|
response 255 of 393:
|
Jan 9 18:35 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:246: I don't know. I think mynxcat is right. So far it looks
like the policy is "if you're jep or valerie, you can have your items
deleted. Otherwise you can't." Or maybe, "if you can find a burned-out
staff member who doesn't care anymore, you can have your items deleted."
Re resp:247: I agree with you. I think valerie deleted all her items as
a petty slap in the face to the rest of Grex. An "I'm taking my ball
and going home" sort of action.
|
gull
|
|
response 256 of 393:
|
Jan 9 18:37 UTC 2004 |
Err, all her comments, rather. She didn't delete all her items,
thankfully.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 257 of 393:
|
Jan 9 18:43 UTC 2004 |
222 newresponse items in info - how......"delightful".
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 258 of 393:
|
Jan 9 18:55 UTC 2004 |
Re 250> Sindi, I'm not overweight, just trying to make a point. I
think you're joking or trying to make a point too, but I'm not sure.
Re 252>"The thing that distinguishes those items is that they
were the effective leaders of the discussions and the primary subjects
of the discussion."
I was the effective leader and the primary subject of the "mynxcat
wants to be svelte" item. I'd like it to be killed, because people
could have the mistaken impression that I'm horribly obese (and
possibly parody it on *the other system*). I would not like my friends
to ever stumble upon this.
|
jp2
|
|
response 259 of 393:
|
Jan 9 18:58 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 260 of 393:
|
Jan 9 19:06 UTC 2004 |
I can understand why people would be upset with me. What I did was not
blameless. I requested items be deleted which contained other people's
responses.
It was not fair. I was able to convince someone to take an action for
me which is not available to everyone.
I think it was justified in the case of my two items. I recognize that
many people will disagree, either that it should ever be possible to
get an item deleted, or that mine should have received an exception to
a general prohibition against removing items.
I also think I caught a break. There have not been that many times in
the last two years that circumstances would have allowed me to get my
items removed. The chance came along, and I grabbed it, and it was
done.
Greg, you can call me a vandal if you'd like. I think no one had read
those items in over a year. I *know* no one had responded to either of
them in that time. I can assure you I had no intent to cause harm to
anyone. I wasn't trying to make a point, or get a thrill from damaging
Grex, or cause a discussion to put myself into the spotlight, or
anything of the sort. I wasn't trying to get back at anyone. I was
trying to protect myself and my son from possible negative consequences
of things I did a couple of years ago, at a difficult time of my life.
I don't think I'm a vandal. My motives certainly weren't what I would
expect a vandal's to be. I am very sorry if you can't respect the
reasons for what I did, or the way I went about doing it, but there's
my explanation.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 261 of 393:
|
Jan 9 19:43 UTC 2004 |
Jep, I understand why you did what you did. flem is being a little
harsh terming it vandalism (The image of you sitting at your computer
rubbing your hands in glee and cackling comes to mind, and it makes me
laugh) I'm glad that you found a break, and got those items that could
have caused you potential harm deleted.
However, Grex did have a rule. Either you make it cut-and-dried -
there will be no deleting, you may only use retire, or come to the
realisation that if we think it ok for your situation, you have to let
other people be able to do it too. Your divorce could be a highly
stressful subject for you to have on agora, in someone else's case it
could be something else. Who is to judge how much concern an
individual has about an item that is out there, that they may have
started in a moment of vulnerability.
(And while we're at it, I'd like that item I entered about the piano
in the music cf to be deleted. People might read it and make fun of my
piano playing skills, or lack thereof ;) )
|
keesan
|
|
response 262 of 393:
|
Jan 9 19:55 UTC 2004 |
Mynxcat, you are obviously joking about people thinking you are obese,
considering you posted your original weight and we all admired you for sticking
to an exercise program. Plus I doubt you are thin-skinned enough to care if
mnet decides to use your item for a parody. And yes, of course I was joking.
If I were going to get embarrased about anything I posted, it is not my weight.
|
flem
|
|
response 263 of 393:
|
Jan 9 19:57 UTC 2004 |
I'll confess that my anger over what you and valerie have done is
somewhat mitigated by circumstances. If you stole a loaf of bread to
feed your starving son, I'd be sympathetic -- but you'd still be a thief.
Insofar as Grex has any policy covering events like this, it's that no
permanent action will be taken until public discussion has taken place
and either consensus or a member vote occurs. We empower staff and
board to act in emergencies and other situations where lengthy public
debate would have a detrimental effect, but we expect that they will
come up with temporary solutions that can be removed once the lengthy
public discussion has taken place.
As I understand it (I no longer have access to the mailing lists where
I understand the discussions took place, so I may be wrong about
sequence of events), Jan proposed a temporary solution, that your items
be removed from public view while a discussion was held over whether or
not you could delete the whole item. Instead of accepting this
proposal, which would have addressed your (understandable) concerns
about someone posting an archive of the items, you took matters into
your own hands.
I can understand and accept that you felt it necessary to take steps to
make sure no one could read your own comments in those items. I don't
really care why; it's none of my business. It is for your decision that
the rest of us had no say in what was to be done with *our* responses
taht you have lost my respect, and that I consider you a vandal.
|