|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 393 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 37 of 393:
| 
Jan 6 18:25 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 38 of 393:
|
Jan 6 18:25 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 39 of 393:
|
Jan 6 18:30 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 40 of 393:
|
Jan 6 18:36 UTC 2004 |
While I am a little surprised about valerie's feelings in this matter,
I am not surprised that she wanted to remove the baby diaries. I mean,
she has talked about a lot of very private things and I can totally
understand that she might not want those lingering around here. Maybe
it is time to revisit our censorship policy. Maybe making the author of
the item the "owner" could have some advantages.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 41 of 393:
|
Jan 6 18:58 UTC 2004 |
On what basis is it "wrong," jp2? I don't see it.
|
jp2
|
|
response 42 of 393:
|
Jan 6 19:00 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 43 of 393:
|
Jan 6 19:06 UTC 2004 |
"Arbitrarily"? No. For good reason? Yes.
|
jp2
|
|
response 44 of 393:
|
Jan 6 19:11 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
ryan
|
|
response 45 of 393:
|
Jan 6 19:14 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 46 of 393:
|
Jan 6 19:21 UTC 2004 |
I feel that staff shouldn't be allowed to remove their personal items
just because they no longer want them public unless the same ability is
granted to everyone. I know there are probably items in old agoras that
I'd prefer to go back and delete, but since I'm not a staff member that
option isn't open to me.
|
gull
|
|
response 47 of 393:
|
Jan 6 19:22 UTC 2004 |
(So I guess I agree with jp2 to the extent that I feel this was wrong,
and that valerie should, at very least, get a stern "don't do that
again." I'm not willing to call for her resignation; I see this as an
isolated incident and not a pattern of abuse of staff powers.)
|
ryan
|
|
response 48 of 393:
|
Jan 6 19:22 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 49 of 393:
|
Jan 6 19:23 UTC 2004 |
I actually doubt that. But it would probably depend on what staff
member you asked.
|
ryan
|
|
response 50 of 393:
|
Jan 6 19:28 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
willcome
|
|
response 51 of 393:
|
Jan 6 19:57 UTC 2004 |
I'm not stupid. :(
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 52 of 393:
|
Jan 6 19:58 UTC 2004 |
>#36 of 50 by Scott Helmke (scott) on Tue Jan 6 13:24:39 2004:
>I'd want to hear complaints from the people whose content was
>deleted, not the usual troublemakers like polytarp and jp2.
I resent having my posts deleted.
While I can understand why Valerie did what she did, it's not like she
didn't have an alternative to just nuking the complete items. There
were a large number of side-discussions, like any other item on grex,
that could be pretty beneficial to the community.
And it's not like she knew it wasn't allowed. She did try to delete
them as herself, but when that didn't work.. out came the magic staff
powers. Nice work.
|
other
|
|
response 53 of 393:
|
Jan 6 19:59 UTC 2004 |
Funny, all the evidence I've seen points to the contrary. You're
welcome to attempt to provide some counter evidence, but I doubt
you're up to the challenge.
|
other
|
|
response 54 of 393:
|
Jan 6 20:00 UTC 2004 |
Mynxcat slipped in
|
slynne
|
|
response 55 of 393:
|
Jan 6 20:08 UTC 2004 |
Would an author of an item have the power to retire it?
|
carson
|
|
response 56 of 393:
|
Jan 6 20:19 UTC 2004 |
(I could have sworn that, as a FW, I had the option of killing an
item. I don't believe this to be anything new and, when I was actively
FWing the games conference, it was a standard practice. isn't valerie
a FW in the conference where she had posted the items? doesn't that
give her the power to kill said items, regardless of her staff
position? and, if that's the case, will the jackasses who have
groundlessly claimed that valerie abused some nebulous staff power [and
the list appears to be getting longer] apologize to her?)
(what was the problem, again?)
|
jp2
|
|
response 57 of 393:
|
Jan 6 20:31 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 58 of 393:
|
Jan 6 20:32 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
willcome
|
|
response 59 of 393:
|
Jan 6 21:04 UTC 2004 |
I also object to having had my posts removed.
|
gull
|
|
response 60 of 393:
|
Jan 6 21:10 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:53: These lines from resp:0 would tend to support mynxcat's
interpretation:
---
----Valerie Mates: valerie(112) pid=13463
cf=/bbs/femme 81 ps T3.3a Mon Jan 5 11:59:08 2004
prompt="(oops)? " (prompt) cmd was: kill 81^J
error was:You can't do that!
----PicoSpan file owner: cfadm(60) pid=13712
cf=/bbs/femme 81 ps T3.3a Mon Jan 5 12:00:01 2004
prompt="(oops)? " (prompt) cmd was: kill 81^J
error was:Deleting message 81
---
It looks like Valerie tried to delete them as a normal user, then when
she couldn't, switched to doing it as cfadm. That should have provided
her with a pretty strong hint that this isn't something normal users can
do. I'm sorry but pleading ignorance isn't very convincing.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 61 of 393:
|
Jan 6 21:28 UTC 2004 |
Response 57 highlights the disagreement: I think the author of an item
has the right to remove the item, EVEN IF OTHERS HAVE RESPONDED. This
includes agora's "happy", "bummed" and "license plate" items, where the
item author is often just the 'lucky' one who got there first.
|