|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 99 responses total. |
gerund
|
|
response 25 of 99:
| 
Dec 29 06:45 UTC 1994 |
Listen, I'm venting and i'm sorry.
This is why I keep saying I'm going to leave.
I'm going to keep hurting people.
I'll let this drop.
|
mju
|
|
response 26 of 99:
|
Dec 29 08:14 UTC 1994 |
I explained much more in private mail to gerund, but just a few quick
points here:
First, if someone posts publically a private conversation you had
with them (that actually happened), then that person has breached
the trust you gave them, but nothing more. Grex won't do anything
to cover it up, any more than it would be right for the government
to censor someone who tape-recorded a conversation they had and
then played it over a PA system. If you can't trust the person to
not repeat things that shouldn't be repeated, don't tell them to the
person in the first place.
Second, if someone puts words into someone else's mouth (by alleging
they had a conversation that never occured, or similar means),
that also isn't Grex's concern unless it is legally slander.
In order for something to be legally considered slander, it has to
injure the person's reputation or well-being, and it has to be false.
There are a lot of things that are pretty nasty to say publically
about someone, but don't injure their reputation or well-being
either because the person who says them isn't believed, or sufficient
proof is not supplied, or because simply by their nature they are
not injurious.
I sincerely hope that Grex never puts itself in the position of censoring
something which is not illegal. Yes, srw, it's rude to make public
a private conversation without the consent of the participants.
However, in many states you only need the permission of *one* of the
two parties to record a phone call. It could even be argued that
on Grex, everyone implicitly consents to have "party" conversations,
PicoSpan items, e-mail, etc. logged. (Of course, by "logged" I don't
mean for the sysadmins' use -- Grex staffers do not look at private
e-mail or private party channel logs except when security or legal
needs make it necessary.) Thus, if you say something you regret in
a private conversation and someone later repeats it for all to hear,
that's unfortunate, and perhaps next time you won't share that type
of information with the person in question, but it's not Grex's place to
censor it.
|
gerund
|
|
response 27 of 99:
|
Dec 29 17:26 UTC 1994 |
What's often recognized as legal is often still dead wrong.
|
srw
|
|
response 28 of 99:
|
Dec 30 01:43 UTC 1994 |
Well, I disagree with you Marc. I apparently also disagree with steve,
remmers, and others. I recognize the ideals of avoiding censorship.
I hold them very high. I do not hold them above everything, however.
My reaction to this, if I had the power, would be to suppress the
offending response (#0) and let the debate over whether it was the right
thing to do continue. I am looking at the hurting and wondering if there is
any compassion among you. I think you are letting your high ideals blind
your common sense.
|
andyv
|
|
response 29 of 99:
|
Dec 30 01:56 UTC 1994 |
Steve, if the item had been killed right at the beginning, there would have
been a danger that it would have been driven underground possibly to e-mail
and done more damage there. That was mentioned as an option. Now that it
has served a purpose, it might indeed be time to kill it or archive it.
|
srw
|
|
response 30 of 99:
|
Dec 30 02:00 UTC 1994 |
The damage was done primarily by exposure. I have trouble understanding
how more damage could be done underground. It's hard for me to see how
more damage could have been done by doing anything other than what we did.
That's just my opinion, of course.
|
gerund
|
|
response 31 of 99:
|
Dec 30 02:04 UTC 1994 |
Oh there is damage for years that has been done.
And I think getting rid of the post might have saved us ALL from
some it.
|
andyv
|
|
response 32 of 99:
|
Dec 30 02:33 UTC 1994 |
Speculation on my part only. My experiences have been with dealing with
dirt face to face with people or behind my back. The juicy tidbit which
seems to be hidden seems to be able to resurface over a wide area over
a long period of time. Maybe that wouldn't happen in cyberspace. The
last three presidents have all tried hiding behind executive privilage,
and look where it got them. Politicians have learned not to let allegations
to go unanswered. Now they try to beat the press to the mic.
|
andyv
|
|
response 33 of 99:
|
Dec 30 02:50 UTC 1994 |
Popcorn stuck her neck out and shut agora 32 down, being the fw. I'm new
around here so I really don't understand the way things work. If the
two people who run a conference are not watching, the conference can run
wild?
|
chelsea
|
|
response 34 of 99:
|
Dec 30 03:40 UTC 1994 |
Item #32 in Agora can be read and responded to by calling up the item
at Agora's OK: prompt. Enter "read 32" without the quotes.
|
gerund
|
|
response 35 of 99:
|
Dec 30 03:54 UTC 1994 |
Oh I can see hell a brewin' now.
|
tsty
|
|
response 36 of 99:
|
Dec 30 19:27 UTC 1994 |
bingo!
|
andyv
|
|
response 37 of 99:
|
Dec 30 19:29 UTC 1994 |
Sorry for my ignorance, I see #32 has only been taken off the front page.
So, Mary, since the Bylaws are invoked to justifyy system overload, why aren't
the Bylaws invoked to insure the "...intellectual enrichment,and entertainment
of its users through the peaceable interchange of information and ideas"
concerning item 32 in agora?
|
remmers
|
|
response 38 of 99:
|
Dec 30 19:58 UTC 1994 |
Now *there's* a leading question!
|
chelsea
|
|
response 39 of 99:
|
Dec 30 20:18 UTC 1994 |
For fairwitnesses or staff to censor or kill an item because someone
doesn't like something that was said about them in the item is a
bad idea. But it's a really bad idea to censor or kill only when
someone throws a major-league toddler-style temper tantrum in order
to get something censored. That's what's happening here.
|
andyv
|
|
response 40 of 99:
|
Dec 30 20:42 UTC 1994 |
Was the exchange "a peaceable interchange of information and ideas?"
Of course it was peaceable in that no one was physically hurt but
I don't think that is what was intended by the phrase.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 41 of 99:
|
Dec 30 22:18 UTC 1994 |
Grex supplies the format. People bring to it the best they have
to offer. In this particular case people didn't do all that well.
|
gerund
|
|
response 42 of 99:
|
Dec 30 22:18 UTC 1994 |
I've been informed that the poster of the item asked for it to be removed.
Pray tell: Why is it still there?
I thought policy was to remove items if the author asked for them to leave.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 43 of 99:
|
Dec 30 22:25 UTC 1994 |
Which item are you talking about, gerund?
|
gerund
|
|
response 44 of 99:
|
Dec 30 23:35 UTC 1994 |
#32 agora
|
chelsea
|
|
response 45 of 99:
|
Dec 31 01:22 UTC 1994 |
The item's poster, seraph, doesn't need to ask anyone to freeze and/or
retire the item - seraph can do that himself.
I don't know if that's what you mean by removing an item. If you
want it expunged from this earth, it can't be done. It's like the
spoken word, once someone has heard it (or read it in this case) it
is. If you are looking for a policy that says a FW has an obligation
to kill an item (making it unavailable to anyone trying to read it
in the conference) then there has never been any such policy, in fact,
conventional understanding used to be it would be a rare day that
there would be that kind of censorship.
Was that of any help?
|
gerund
|
|
response 46 of 99:
|
Dec 31 02:02 UTC 1994 |
Yes it was Goddess of Grex Mary.
That is an outright contridiction of SEVERAL things I have seen occur with my
own two eyes.
But fuck it.
you be smug and happy.
I never thought I see the day that Grex became M-Net.
Your going to go down just like it did.
It's happening.
I'm so damn sorry I had to be a part of the reason.
I know who runs Grex now.
Thank you for the imformation.
|
tsty
|
|
response 47 of 99:
|
Dec 31 02:07 UTC 1994 |
fw-s, imo, +do+ have the obligation to "take under advisement" the
requests made of them. There is no mandate for the collective
entity of fw-s to agree on any particular course, or non-course,
of action, however it seems that way.
And fw-s can get into their own squabble as well. I think the
most a fw (or an item-poster) can do is freeze and retire a
given item. I think that the censor option is rendered inoperable
on this box, although mdw may want to correct or amplify that.
Tastes differ, as do opinions. Imo, responding to a request
is much more valid an action than simply zapping something
"just 'cause."
That's why pencils have erasers. If the pencil operator doesn't
know how to use the Picospan eraser, and asks for assistance,
I'll usually help either with instructions or by operating the
eraser for that pern.
If someone requests that the fw use the eraser "for cause," that
cause, imo, requires analysis - not the blanket "no," as has been
the case most of the time.
As my grandfather and I used to argue (to stalemate), "you can't
yell 'fire' in a theater (restriction on free speech," and my
answer is, and will continue to be, "oh, yes you can - you just have
to be sure you are correct when you yell it."
Imo, far too many people do not wnat to hear "fire" - they'd rather
burn in ignorance. I choose and act otherwise.
(btw, grandfather was a federal prosecutor)
There is also "it ain't my responsibility" response to fw-ing when
something untoward happens in another conference.o
My opinion of that practice is very low. Perns with power/responsibility
have to pay attention to the "whole" of the system, not just
isolate themselves in their own little cacoon.
Dealing iwth a situation in which there are abject newbies, some
flitting about with frothing fingers, necessitates that there
be an adult in the sandbox. There are lots of adults here, and also
lots of sandboxes. How the fw-s (lowest on the power/responsibility
curve) act/perform is crucial to the goals adn perceptions of
of and about the entire Grex-b0x, collective entity or not.
Anarchy, as well as tyranny, has its limits.
[[the above is not a campaign speech, but it could be if anyone
wants to use any, or all, of it.]] {{attribution not necessary}}
|
tsty
|
|
response 48 of 99:
|
Dec 31 02:08 UTC 1994 |
#46 slipped in, unfortunately.
|
gerund
|
|
response 49 of 99:
|
Dec 31 02:11 UTC 1994 |
Yeah.
It takes so little to ruin a wonderful thing.
And it's being ruined.
|