|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 393 responses total. |
jmsaul
|
|
response 317 of 393:
| 
Jan 13 04:44 UTC 2004 |
Re #315: I don't think Valerie cared whether her actions were within the
guidelines or not; her own comfort and feeling of control were
paramount. She herself said that she was prepared to be removed
from staff for it, so it's clear she at least suspected she was
doing something she wasn't supposed to.
|
bru
|
|
response 318 of 393:
|
Jan 13 04:58 UTC 2004 |
delete and be damned! They are no great loss.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 319 of 393:
|
Jan 13 05:00 UTC 2004 |
If that's the standard, let's torch 80% of the conferencing system.
|
other
|
|
response 320 of 393:
|
Jan 13 05:24 UTC 2004 |
Mary, I would respond that if it came to it, our answer would be
that this was an aberration, not a one-time kindness. Our answer
would be that this was the result of an internal communication issue
we didn't know existed, and we're using this opportunity to insure
that it doesn't happen again. Our answer would be that this WAS a
violation of existing policy.
My guiding principle here is the one of least harm. That principle
dictates that the text rightfully removed remain removed, and the
text not rightfully removed be restored, except insofar as it quotes
significantly (an admittedly unclear standard) from the rightfully
removed text. The stated purposes of item removal were specifically
prevention of future parody (Valerie) and prevention of future abuse
(John). Valerie's case is easier, since it is her text in specific
which represents the potential, and it can easily be identified and
separated. Jep's case is a bit harder. Not having great
familiarity with the precise content of the items, I can't say
exactly how best to serve both his need and the need to protect
against censorship, but I'm SURE there is a balance to be struck.
However, that compromise will likely be less satisfactory to jep
than to those others who posted in his items.
Jep's right to redress his own errors does not supercede the rights
of others to control over their own thoughts and ideas, nor does it
supercede the rights of Grex to to what is in its own best interests
within the limitations of the law, and that's something he'll have
to accept.
The point is that we can move on from here with some reasonable
action which addresses the current issues without establishing a
precedent Grex can't live with, and we can do it without completely
backtracking and exposing jep to the full extent he fears.
|
willcome
|
|
response 321 of 393:
|
Jan 13 09:57 UTC 2004 |
Do you know about the harm principle? It's based on you shouldn't harm the
harmless as a legal law. What do you think?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 322 of 393:
|
Jan 13 13:15 UTC 2004 |
Re #320: That's well said, and a good explanation of my position too.
|
iggy
|
|
response 323 of 393:
|
Jan 13 17:00 UTC 2004 |
(for those of you who are impaired, the following is sarcasm:)
i think that all text on grex should be erased in an attempt to start
over from scratch. within every conference there should be a warning
about not entering anything that you wouldn't want to be read on the front
page of a nation-wide newspaper. and a prodding that you may claim to
not care now, but that if you change yuor mind in 5 years you cannot go
back and un-do what you wrote.
|
tod
|
|
response 324 of 393:
|
Jan 13 20:54 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 325 of 393:
|
Jan 13 21:29 UTC 2004 |
That is a little bit of an over-reaction.
|
jp2
|
|
response 326 of 393:
|
Jan 13 21:37 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 327 of 393:
|
Jan 13 22:13 UTC 2004 |
You should see janc over-react.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 328 of 393:
|
Jan 14 09:36 UTC 2004 |
Welcome to the theater of the absurd?
|
cross
|
|
response 329 of 393:
|
Jan 14 16:51 UTC 2004 |
I encourage everyone who reads this to ask themselves the following:
What would the reaction be if a random person broke root on grex and
deleted a bunch of conference items?
Wouldn't we restore them?
So what makes this situation different? That some well known and popular
grexers deleted (either directly or by proxy) their items? Is it the
fact that these individuals are well-known and popular that allows us
to condone their actions? Is it the fact that they had good reasons?
This is important. Why are people willing to let valerie and jep slide
when if the exact same thing happened under different circumstances,
the question wouldn't even be asked: we'd simply restore the deleted data.
I disagree with Joe that restoring the items would serve no useful
purpose. It would send a message that Grex does *not* tolerate
censorship, and that if such aberations do happen, they will be undone
quickly.
That said, as I have proposed before, I think that jep and valerie
(or someone acting on their behalfs) should be allowed to delete their
responses from their items prior to them appearing publically.
|
slynne
|
|
response 330 of 393:
|
Jan 14 17:04 UTC 2004 |
Honestly, I am willing to let valerie and jep slide on this because
those items are so personal. I realize that I am not being objective
about this.
I think that restoring the items with the comments of anyone willing to
have them deleted is probably the best solution to this issue. I think
that most people would be willing to have their own comments deleted
from those items. The few comments that would be left would not be
harmful to anyone, imho.
But honestly, that solution pretty much acomplishes the same thing as
just leaving them deleted. I get the whole thing about how we dont want
to set a precident for some users being allowed to delete other users
posts and all that. I dont think that the posts themselves are worth
much especially since they will be taken out of any context they once
had. In the grand scheme of things, I dont think these items are
important. I personally do not care if they remain deleted or not.
|
flem
|
|
response 331 of 393:
|
Jan 14 17:35 UTC 2004 |
The difference between leaving the items completely deleted and
restoring them minus the responses of users who *explicitly state* that
they don't mind having those comments deleted is this: In the former
case we as the community of grex are saying that the desires of a single
user are more important than the rights of ownership and freedom of
speech of all the other users who posted in those items. We're not even
saying that one person's rights are more important than anothers, we're
saying that one person's *desires* are more important than the rest of
our *rights*.
|
slynne
|
|
response 332 of 393:
|
Jan 14 18:02 UTC 2004 |
Yes. I can totally see how you can see it that way. And I agree that it
is wrong to allow a user to delete anyone else's posts. I know that if
the board were asked to vote on this, I would feel compeled to be
objective and the objective view is that grex users should not be
allowed to delete other user's posts. Nor should they be able to have a
staff member delete other user's posts (unless in the context of
something like the proposed blog conference).
Yet, I would hope that anyone who had responded in those items would be
willing to give their permission to have their responses deleted. To do
otherwise is, imho, rubbing salt into the wound. I honestly believe
that most of the people who have commented in those items would be
quite willing to allow their posts to be deleted.
FWIW, I understand that there is a big difference between allowing
one's posts to be deleted and having them deleted by someone else
without permission even if the end result is the same.
|
keesan
|
|
response 333 of 393:
|
Jan 14 18:05 UTC 2004 |
So far how many people have said they are NOT willing to have their postings
deleted from Valerie's and JEP's items? The only one I recall is Mary.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 334 of 393:
|
Jan 14 19:16 UTC 2004 |
Re: #333 - it doesn't matter. The default position must be "as close as
possible to what should have happened", which is all people's responses remain
unless they exclicity go and scribble them themselves.
|
cross
|
|
response 335 of 393:
|
Jan 14 19:38 UTC 2004 |
JP2 said he didn't want his responses deleted.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 336 of 393:
|
Jan 14 19:49 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 337 of 393:
|
Jan 14 19:52 UTC 2004 |
I do not want my responses deleted from Valerie's items. I'm willing
to discuss with jep whether I'd consent to having them removed from his.
In either case, what matters isn't that my responses were particularly
valuable, it's the principle: deleting them wasn't Valerie's decision
to make.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 338 of 393:
|
Jan 14 20:03 UTC 2004 |
i don't want my posts deleted.
|
naftee
|
|
response 339 of 393:
|
Jan 14 23:50 UTC 2004 |
re 332
>willing to give their permission to have their responses deleted.
But now you're making assumptions about other people's opinions! Unless of
course you remember exactly who responded to each item and can either vouch
for them reasonably or have spoken to them personally. I'm willing to bet
you did not do this.
The above point goes for all the other users who made similar statements.
|
jep
|
|
response 340 of 393:
|
Jan 15 03:23 UTC 2004 |
My items being deleted is different from a vandal breaking root in
these ways:
1) Multiple staff members thought it was okay to delete those items
and said so publicly before I made my request.
2) There was precedent, at the time I made my request, for deleting
items of that sort. Valerie had deleted her items.
3) I asked for my two items to be deleted. I made an official request
through the best means of doing so; a message to "staff@grex.org", and
this request was granted.
I've already stated that I wouldn't have asked for the items to be
deleted if it weren't for points 1 and 2. I had no reason to expect
they might be restored, amidst a publicity firestorm yet, when all I
wanted was for them to disappear.
I'd rather, right now, that no items had been deleted, rather than
have the possibility my items will be restored in the current
environment and due to the current situation.
|
naftee
|
|
response 341 of 393:
|
Jan 15 03:35 UTC 2004 |
Do you even try reading things in this conference? All three of those points
are mostly bull.
|