response 51 of 99:

Dec 31 02:48 UTC 1994

You can't kill it once it's been responded to.
Before then at the respond or pass prompt you can type: kill
and it goes bub i.
The only way it could go bub i now if for staff to make
it go bub i and staff is too concerned about ideas and philosophies
to make it go bub i.

response 53 of 99:

Dec 31 07:14 UTC 1994

retiring an item is simply putting it out of general view
you can still read it you just can't read it directly so to
speak, but if you type read 32 you
will read it.
like it even matters antymore

response 55 of 99:

Dec 31 14:40 UTC 1994

TS, at least, didn't advocate such a policy.  He argued for a policy that
requests for items to be killed be evaluated to see whether they have
merit.

response 57 of 99:

Dec 31 16:06 UTC 1994

Well I'm confused about definitions.  Mary, can you explain what the options
you mentioned are.

response 59 of 99:

Dec 31 20:52 UTC 1994

At this point I'm so upset by this, and by things that have nothing to do
with this that I'm lashing out at everyone.
I can't intelligently talk about this any more so I'm
forgeting the item.
I hope you all figure out whatever it is you're trying to figure out.

response 61 of 99:

Jan 2 07:47 UTC 1995

Well, I thought we were trying to explore the limits of Grex's
non-censorship tendency (such as slanderous responses in a cf), and
then we had a brouhaha in party which someone posted in a cf item.
This lead to several people feeling hurt and the fw wasn't available to
kill the item at the hurt peoples' request.  There is a big question
still waiting for the right situation--what should Grex staff or fw's
do in the case of clearly slanderous postings?  Anyway, we have a lot
of residual acrimony which has spilled from the "party post" item into
this item.  (popcorn retired the "party post" item in the midst of all
the shouting).  It's an interesting question, and I hope we never have
to resort to censorship (removal of the material) to deal with such a
problem--but it remains a possibility if the situation is serious
enough.  It also seemed that most people (or many) recognized the
item for what it was and stopped reading very early on, which tends to
negate the actual effect of posted material, albeit on an individual,
voluntary level.
 

response 63 of 99:

Jan 2 08:10 UTC 1995

        I just went and read the item in Agora, and I have to say that I'm
glad I missed it.  Knowing all the people involved, and knowing how easy
it is to make up a party log, I didn't believe it, and don't think anybody
else would, but I still found it to be the most malicious item I have seen
in my more than two years on Grex.
        Normally I am dead set against censorshp, to the point of avoiding
it at almost any cost, but in this case I think the item should have been
killed or retired much sooner.  Yes seraph has the right to free speech,
but when that crosses over into libel or slander it ceases to me merely a
free speech issue.  Even if the conversation had really happened, and even
if bhelliom had said the things she was alleged to have said, it strikes
me as the sort of thing that would be none of the rest of Grex's business.
 I'm not sure where to draw the line, and killing an item without the
consent of the person who entered it should be a very rare step indeed,
but a line does have to be drawn somewhere.

response 65 of 99:

Jan 2 19:34 UTC 1995

Unfortunately, IMHO seraph's item was not slander or libel.

response 67 of 99:

Jan 2 20:03 UTC 1995

So when a newspaper refuses to publish a libelous letter to the editor,
that's unconstitutional?  Grex isn't the government...

response 69 of 99:

Jan 2 23:09 UTC 1995

Um, no, it actually doesn't have much to do with who we believe.  I
don't think it was slander because I don't think it damaged anyone's
reputation (except maybe seraph's, but you can't slander yourself).
I'm stating this from the point of view of a disinterested outsider,
though; I don't know any of the people involved or know of any 
romantic relationships that might or might not exist between said people.

I don't think there's any argument that speech which is clearly 
slanderous should be removed by the Grex staff when it is brought to
their attention.  Failure to do so could result in Grex becoming
responsible for the slander to the same extent that the original author
was.

The real items of discussion seem to be: first, whether Grex should
censor/remove from public view statements which are merely offensive,
but not slanderous; and second, whether or not seraph's item was
slanderous.

response 71 of 99:

Jan 3 18:47 UTC 1995

regardless, popcorn did the right thing.

response 73 of 99:

Jan 4 05:43 UTC 1995

In the main party channel, anybody can come in at any time and tail back. 
That's the nature of party.  Private channels, which I'm assuming that
fake log was supposed to be from, have logs that can not be accessed by
people who aren't invited into the party by one of the participants. 
Either way, as long as a channel continues to exist, people can come in
and tail back to the beginning, or in the case of the main party channel
to the beginning of the week.  Party is not completely private, and should
not be thought of as such.  Still, it's a bit of a leap from going into
party and tailing back to posting it in a conference.