|
Grex > Coop13 > #76: member initiative: do not restore two items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 357 responses total. |
cyklone
|
|
response 292 of 357:
| 
Jan 24 20:20 UTC 2004 |
Perhaps you should check my previous posts or read a dictionary that states
censorship is barring objectionable statements. You claim that it is OK to
remove the words of others because you object to the lack of context that
would result from partial scribbling. Is that clear enough?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 293 of 357:
|
Jan 24 20:49 UTC 2004 |
Better. However, I do not find the words themselves objectionable.
So your claim of "censorship" does not apply.
Nor do I really object to the lack of context. I do think that, as a
whole, we would be better off with items removed all at once rather than
little by little. It's more an aesthetic thing than anything else: it's
cleaner and results in less confusion: it's all there, or it's all not.
In the disccusion of closing the 'censor log, I argued that the removal
of a response that leaves another response context-less is something for
the responder to deal with. I see the removal of a response as different
from the removal of an item.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 294 of 357:
|
Jan 24 21:59 UTC 2004 |
On what basis are you making that distinction? It seems to me to be a
distinction without a difference. And for someone who doesn't "really
object to the lack of context" you certainly made a big deal of it in
#279.
BTW, opposing something on the grounds of aesthetics is just another form
of censorship. You are confusing the specific form of content-based
censorship with the larger set of censorship for *all* objectionable
reasons. That you seek to bar restoration because you find the aesthetics
objectionable in no way minimizes the fact that what you propose *is*
still censorship.
Even more to the point, how can you seriously advocate a right to remove
someone's words on aesthetic grounds? Grex is full of inartfully written
material that offends my sense of aesthetics. What you are suggesting
leads to an absurd result. And since people already have right to remove
their posts, your "all or nothing" argument is unsupported by existing
policy.
I can just see the next proposal in which one of the polyboys proposes a
vote to remove all of klg's items on the grounds his use of the royal "we"
offends their sense of aesthetics. In the end, you have no real
justification for denying posters the right to post and then control what
happens to those posts. By posting your long diatribe about context, and
then denying it is really important to you, followed by your new
aesthetics angle, you are simply confirming my previous assertions that
some grexers will do anything to justify doing a personal favor for a
favored person.
|
naftee
|
|
response 295 of 357:
|
Jan 24 22:19 UTC 2004 |
I really can't believe the attitude that staff (especially gelinas) is taking
on this matter. The GreX BBS is *supposed* to be a forum _supporting_ free
speech on the Internet. One would think the staff members would be biased
towards any person arguing to restore something that has been censored.
Instead, users have to write pages and pages of text to convince the staff
and users that an event that has come to pass was indeed an act of censorship!
I think the content of the webpage and bylaws should be changed, since the
GreX staff cannot clearly decide what is or isn't censorship and refuse to
stand up for violated users.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 296 of 357:
|
Jan 24 22:21 UTC 2004 |
I'm sorry that I'm not being clear, cyklone.
I _do_ think the lack of context is sufficient cause to remove the entirety
of an item. Similarly, I think it more aesthetic to remove the entirety
of an item rather than just pieces of it. But I don't really object to
context-less posts, I just think that we (writers and readers) are usually
better off without them.
I do NOT think that is censorship, but apparently you can't make fine
distinctions. No big deal.
|
jp2
|
|
response 297 of 357:
|
Jan 24 23:05 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 298 of 357:
|
Jan 25 00:40 UTC 2004 |
The funny thing is, now he's only posting what he thinks is right. The funny
thing is, gelinas was complaining that cyklone was doing the same thing
naught twenty responses ago. The funny thing is, cyklone always had facts,
but gelinas never did.
|
mary
|
|
response 299 of 357:
|
Jan 25 01:14 UTC 2004 |
There is certainly room for different opinions here. Really, there
is. And you can disagree with someone having a different take on it
without going to DEFCOM ONE.
I'm looking forward to this vote being over. I miss Grex.
|
mary
|
|
response 300 of 357:
|
Jan 25 01:15 UTC 2004 |
Er, DEFCON, I think.
|
scott
|
|
response 301 of 357:
|
Jan 25 02:07 UTC 2004 |
Is it "making up lies about your opposition" to falsely accuse your opposition
of doing so?
|
bhoward
|
|
response 302 of 357:
|
Jan 25 03:06 UTC 2004 |
(defcon; defcon = defense condition)
|
slynne
|
|
response 303 of 357:
|
Jan 25 15:35 UTC 2004 |
Thanks Bruce, I honestly never knew what defcon meant before.
|
remmers
|
|
response 304 of 357:
|
Jan 25 17:27 UTC 2004 |
<voteadm_request>
This is a member proposal. Discussion is spinning off into other
issues which I don't really want to take the time to follow in
detail right now, although maybe I'll catch up later when I have
more time to spare. So jep, if and when you want this brought to a
vote and have posted a final wording here, could you please email me?
Thanks.
</voteadm_request>
|
naftee
|
|
response 305 of 357:
|
Jan 25 19:34 UTC 2004 |
We should make this into a discussion about defcon
|
gull
|
|
response 306 of 357:
|
Jan 25 22:14 UTC 2004 |
Summary of resp:289:
"I'm always right, my logic is infallible, therefore whoever disagrees
with me must either be stupid or have evil motives."
(I see this method of argument a lot on conservative talk shows.)
|
anderyn
|
|
response 307 of 357:
|
Jan 25 23:39 UTC 2004 |
Cyclone, I must say one thing (sorry this is so late) -- not ALL users
expected their words to be on forever. I certainly thought that old agoras
were weeded after a period of time (say a year). I have no problem with
anything I've ever said on here being zapped after the conversation is over,
whether I explicitly am asked or not. If I wanted a copy, I'd keep one.
|
naftee
|
|
response 308 of 357:
|
Jan 26 00:59 UTC 2004 |
Yeah, but who will decide when the conversation is over?
It's never "over", and you just demonstrated that perfectly.
|
jep
|
|
response 309 of 357:
|
Jan 26 03:13 UTC 2004 |
I sent resp:255 to remmers and voteadm.
|
remmers
|
|
response 310 of 357:
|
Jan 26 11:08 UTC 2004 |
Sorry I missed that response - t'was like looking for a needle in a
haystack. Okay, I'll start the vote today or early tomorrow.
|
jep
|
|
response 311 of 357:
|
Jan 26 16:09 UTC 2004 |
Yeah, I understand the problem. It took me a while to find it myself.
|
jep
|
|
response 312 of 357:
|
Jan 27 14:08 UTC 2004 |
I request, once again as I did in item:75:resp:203 on Wednesday,
January 21, that the Board resolve the questions that have been raised
by myself and others about what happens if both proposals pass, before
the proposals are placed before the voters. I think otherwise the
voters can not know what they are voting to decide, and that therefore
the outcome of the two votes will possibly be moot.
I don't know of a procedure for bringing this request into the decision
making process. I hope someone on the Board can take charge, though.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 313 of 357:
|
Jan 27 16:15 UTC 2004 |
I note that this proposal is expressed as the question, "Shall the staff
be directed to leave these two items as permanently deleted?" A negative
answer does not require any action be taken.
According to the minutes of the most recent board meeting, the votes are
to be run concurrently.
The only conflict is if both initiatives pass, which would quite clearly
indicate that the membership wants the items restored but agrees that
the divorce items should not be restored.
The consensus appears to me to be that if both initiatives fail, no action
should be taken.
|
remmers
|
|
response 314 of 357:
|
Jan 27 17:46 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 315 of 357:
|
Jan 27 18:08 UTC 2004 |
I was busily setting up the vote program this morning and getting
ready to start the voting, since John had given me the go-ahead.
Then I decided to catch up on Coop. Big mistake. :)
According to the rules, once the discussion period on a proposal
is over, the proposer has control over when the vote starts.
I interpret John's #312 as withdrawing the go-ahead, so I won't
start the vote on his proposal unless and until he gives me
the go-ahead again.
Once the voting starts though, there's no turning back....
|
naftee
|
|
response 316 of 357:
|
Jan 27 18:52 UTC 2004 |
Thanks greemers!
|