|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 393 responses total. |
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.
|
jp2
|
|
response 342 of 393:
|
Jan 15 03:38 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 343 of 393:
|
Jan 15 03:54 UTC 2004 |
Like I said above, mostly bull.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 344 of 393:
|
Jan 15 04:23 UTC 2004 |
In several items, jp2 has mentioned asking that Item 39 be deleted from this
conference.
I thought that item should be deleted, by the rules as I understood them.
However, because of the discussion occassioned by the deletion of the
baby-diary items, I asked for guidance from fellow staff members. The one
response I remember seeing advocated a double-standard. While I was waiting
for the discussion to resolve itself, Valerie deleted JEP's items and
resigned.
At this point, the policy appears to be against deletion of items.
I'm not happy with the current situation, but I don't know how best to
resolve it.
|
mary
|
|
response 345 of 393:
|
Jan 15 13:30 UTC 2004 |
"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."
It's not *your* item. Never was. From the moment you opened it up to
public discussion, and someone else took the time to enter a response, the
discussion became a community effort. The item isn't yours.
And what you're really saying is: I'd rather, right now, that no items
had been deleted, rather than have the possibility that what others have
said will remain.
Again, you're sorry you took an action. Maybe you really should think
ahead.
|
jep
|
|
response 346 of 393:
|
Jan 15 16:16 UTC 2004 |
re resp:342:
Q1 "Can you provide any evidence of this"...
item:68:resp:4 (as quoted in item:68:resp:11)
#4: "It's longstanding Grex policy that the person who created an item
can delete it."
item:68:resp:61 (gelinas)
think the author of an item
has the right to remove the item, EVEN IF OTHERS HAVE RESPONDED
Q2: I said that I'd never expected to be able to delete those items,
and that when the opportunity came up unexpectedly, I took it.
Q3: I have no control over your item not being deleted. I didn't bribe
anyone, of course. Am I a favored user? Hmm... I'd say I've earned
some respect on-line. I also carry some baggage from my long
association with Grex and M-Net; I am not universally regarded as the
ideal Grexer or anything like that.
|
jep
|
|
response 347 of 393:
|
Jan 15 16:25 UTC 2004 |
re resp:345: Mary, your third paragraph needs work. I don't even know
what you mean, let alone what you are stating that I meant.
|
jp2
|
|
response 348 of 393:
|
Jan 15 17:02 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
flem
|
|
response 349 of 393:
|
Jan 15 17:05 UTC 2004 |
From the rapidity of the shitstorm which gathered when valerie deleted
the baby items, I'd say it's pretty disingenuous, if not downright
dishonest, ofyou to claim that you didnt' know deleting your items would
produce controversy.
|
jp2
|
|
response 350 of 393:
|
Jan 15 17:08 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 351 of 393:
|
Jan 15 18:46 UTC 2004 |
What I was saying John is you took a big chance you'd be able to have
everyone's responses killed.. You simply wanted it done in a real hurry.
You demanded it be happen before any discussion took place, even among
staff and board. Clearly, the discussion of the propriety of this
censorship wasn't as important as getting the items killed.
So now it's being discussed. It may end up you won't be able to censor
everyone comments. Opps.
|