response 376 of 424:

Feb 5 19:13 UTC 2004

The Treasuerer cannot check the mailbox on Saturday, to see who might have
joined that day.  So the results cannot be certified before Monday.

Reporting tentative results before the membership list is certified
compromises the secret ballot, by allowing of 'traffic analysis.'

response 378 of 424:

Feb 6 00:00 UTC 2004

re 374 Not exactly; a day is really only 23 hours and 56 minutes long
(approx).

response 380 of 424:

Feb 7 13:02 UTC 2004

Voting will end at midnight tonight (Saturday, Feb. 7).  I'll report
the results as soon as Mark can certify the list of eligible voters,
which as Joe pointed out might not be until sometime Monday.

response 382 of 424:

Feb 7 15:15 UTC 2004

Some things on my mind:

1) Someone asked, "If Valerie said she is leaving, why is she still posting
here?"  The answer to that is that I said I was leaving before this kangaroo
court trial of my own integrity started.  I DON'T want to be here now, and I
do intend to go far, far, away after this is over.

2) Jp2 may well be in this for revenge on me, because I locked his account
in December after he sent out 909 e-mail messages.  Cyklone and others who
participated in the baby diary parody (iggy, cross, seldon, and others) may
be arguing so vehemently because I deleted the baby diary as a reaction to
the parody of it.  If they can convince people that deleting the baby diary
was wrong, it de-legitimatizes my reaction to the parody.  That is, they may
be looking for someone to tell them that parodying the baby diary was okay,
and getting people to vote against the deletion is a way of defending their
participation in the parody.

3) I still firmly believe that I acted ethically, to the highest moral
standards, when I deleted the baby diary.  The fair witnesses of the two
conferences were not easily available to be found (even now I've only
managed to locate 4 of the 5, and for some of them it took weeks).  I 
believe that most, quite possibly all, of the fair witnesses of those
conferences would have deleted the baby diaries when I asked.  Time was
critical for getting the baby diaries deleted before parodiers made copies,
and the 4-5 weeks it has taken to locate some (but not all) of the fair
witnesses would have been way too long.  It *is* the role of staff to
help out users who have time-critical problems like this one, where the
fair witnesses are not readily available to fill their roles.  Another
example of staff filling a fair witness's role when the fair witness
was not available: Nobody asked Katie, the fair witness of Agora, who logs
in only rarely, to delete the gaggle of copies of Plato's Republic that
polytarp posted there recently.  A staffer went in and just did it.  And
deleting those items wasn't even time-critical, yet it is okay that a
staffer deleted someone else's postings.

4) Iggy argues that since people warned me not to post personal information
and I did it anyway, people should vote to undelete the baby diaries to make
me live with the consequences of my actions and teach me a lesson.  I find
this argument weird, since so far the only bad consequence of posting
personal information in the baby diaries is that Iggy and other people
parodied it.  If you warned me not to post it, and I did it anyway, isn't
the best solution to delete it, rather than "teaching me a lesson" by putting
the items back on-line?

5) Even if you do think I should be "taught a lesson," please think of my
children.  This is THEIR personal information that we are talking about
putting back online.  Even if I "ought to be punished" for my stupidity in
posting this stuff on-line, my children are innocent.  For their sake, if
for no other reason, I urge you to vote to leave the baby diaries deleted.

response 384 of 424:

Feb 7 15:44 UTC 2004

Just so you know valerie, if you read my numerous posts on the issue, I have
personally much more invested in jep's item. My belief you acted improperly
has zero connection to my parodies. I certainly have no intention of digging
through your diaries for material if they are restored (as they should be).
And I certainly don't need your items restored to feel any sense of
"vindication." Just thought I'd clear that up, since there seems to be a great
deal of unsupported speculation going on.

I am curious, though, how you believe your children would be harmed by
restoring your items.

Finally, it seems to me you are muddying up the issues when you try to
compare your deletions with those of the multiple large files posted by
the polyboys. It is my understanding that those items were impairing
system performance and therefore were well within the purview of staff to
take immediate action. Your items did not impact system performance, and
you were therefore out of line to take staff action of any sort. The same
applies to jep's items.

response 386 of 424:

Feb 7 16:17 UTC 2004

No, I'm not looking for validation that the parodies were okay.  I didn't
participate in them much, and I felt bad about posting the direct quote,
so I scribbled it.  Your reactions here have reduced my sympathy for you,
but whether the parodies were okay, and whether your deletion of other
people's responses was okay, are independent questions

My reaction to your abuse of your Cfadm privileges is completely consistent 
with my reaction to similar actions by FWs on M-Net, and my support of
allowing posters to control their own text.  (Not item authors, the people
who actually wrote the text.)  Abuses of staff privileges shouldn't be
rewarded by allowing them to stand.

response 388 of 424:

Feb 7 17:03 UTC 2004

The above is an excellent choice for a parody.

response 390 of 424:

Feb 7 21:36 UTC 2004

I filter your mom

response 392 of 424:

Feb 8 01:10 UTC 2004

Re 382, where Valerie comments on the deletion of the items quoting
Plato's Republic:  In fact, staff _did_ contact the fairwitness and _did_
wait for her to remove the items.  There were one or two staff members
who were willing to act, but most of us felt the right thing to do,
in light of the current controversy, was to wait of Katie.  So we did.

response 394 of 424:

Feb 8 04:33 UTC 2004

valerie, you lose more credibility and respect with every additional word you
write.  Your reaction to something done elsewhere and overt action (negative,
IMO) against grex do not demonstrate justification one iota.  I acknowledge
that those you feel wronged you are also participating in the issue here on
grex.  But you did not take the high road.  And that is something you will
not admit, and that is what I dislike the most about this whole thing.

response 396 of 424:

Feb 8 09:59 UTC 2004

resp:382 #4 & #5 Good God.  Have you read *anything* concerning what 
has been written say, in the discretion of blogging?  What has been 
written there could well be applied to a situation such as yours.  The 
point is not so much "punishment" but that personal information should 
be handled carefully on public forums, be they bbs, weblog/live 
journal, etc.  We've said that a number of times now.

I think what the big issue has been with the deleted items is that 
people replied to them.  Their responses were deleted without their 
permission.  Anything else, other arguments, I believe, are lesser-- 
arguments that the items had value for others besides the authors, etc.

What do people want from Grex?  This is a public forum-- personal 
information is going to be subject to some scrutiny.  Policy is always 
a band-aid/tailpipe solution at best.  People will either have to be 
comfortable with the fact that such words can be exploited, or they 
maybe shouldn't share-- or share so much.  I think we said there are 
forums a little less public than this-- a little more secure.

response 398 of 424:

Feb 8 15:39 UTC 2004

Re 395 - by 'excellent targets' do you mean for the purpose of hurting
people?