|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 184 responses total. |
twinkie
|
|
response 60 of 184:
| 
Feb 1 04:50 UTC 2004 |
b&
|
naftee
|
|
response 61 of 184:
|
Feb 1 05:18 UTC 2004 |
re 55 What, you're calling me the control freak? You're the one who's making
_specific_ requests of GreX users to do _specific_ actions. I have merely
demanded action on supposed GreXer principles.
re 57 Yeah I have reasonably steady posters on my wall too. Does that count?
|
jp2
|
|
response 62 of 184:
|
Feb 1 05:34 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 63 of 184:
|
Feb 1 15:58 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 64 of 184:
|
Feb 1 17:10 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:63: There's a certain group of people who have come here with no
interest in contributing anything to the system; they're only here to
make trouble, by arguing about obscure points of policy, repeatedly
posting large amounts of irrelevent text in conferences, and abusing
staff members. I see no reason we have to welcome people like that,
anymore than a coffeehouse would have to welcome people who came there
to shout obscenities at patrons.
|
scott
|
|
response 65 of 184:
|
Feb 1 17:10 UTC 2004 |
What bugs me about this whole "Grex MUST xxx, because that's what it claims
to support" argument is that it pretty much would prevent Grex from being a
community. One thing a healthy community can do is occasionally cut people
a little slack. Places that demand 100% compliance with some set of
principles, no matter how well-intentioned, will eventually schism over
differences in interpretation or in realization by some that the principles
cannot be considered perfect.
I don't think a community can be based on "you must assume that EVERYTHING
you say will be hoarded in case it becomes useful as evidence against you".
Nobody can really live up to that standard.
And I would rather not have Grex become like M-Net, where you have a community
of people for whom online interaction means creating a persona that isn't
real but is instead meant for a game of humorous insults.
|
naftee
|
|
response 66 of 184:
|
Feb 1 19:14 UTC 2004 |
re 64 No, we only abuse former staff members.
re 65 Your idea of what m-net is like is rather humourous, but completely
false.
|
aruba
|
|
response 67 of 184:
|
Feb 1 19:16 UTC 2004 |
I agree strongly with scott in #65.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 68 of 184:
|
Feb 1 19:45 UTC 2004 |
re: 65
Kristallnacht was also cohesive community thinking.
Okay, okay, that's more than a little extreme.
Honestly though, what's the point of claiming to support something, when
you're not prepared to support it?
I think a lot of people are surprised to see responses deleted en masse after
the somewhat recent debate over whether a person can permanently scribble one
of their own responses.
It's unconscionable that so many people would object to someone wanting to
do something as simple as remove their posts, yet many of the same objectors
are willing to write a free pass to friends who want to destry their posts,
as well as the contributions of others.
Perhaps I'm misreading here, but it seems to me that the objection isn't as
much to popcorn and jep wanting to scribble their posts. The objection is to
the hundreds (thousands?) of others who were *not* willing to have their
writings arbitrarily censored, yet had their contributions forcibly removed.
Although you don't want Grex to become another M-Net, allowing this could
quite possibly be the most M-Netish thing Grex has ever done. And I'm not
talking about M-Net today, but M-Net before 1995.
You're sowing the seeds of favoritism, separate classes of users, and blatant
staff abuse. If those hallmarks haven't made M-Net what it is today, I don't
know what has.
Rather than view the handful of M-Netters here as dictating "You must be like
M-Net!", try looking at them as people trying to warn you "Don't be like
M-Net." If you're a sci-fi fan, pretend they've come from 2014 to tell you
what Grex looks like in the future.
While I don't necessarily agree with your broad generalization of M-Net's
community atmosphere, there is a certain degree of truth there. To some
(perhaps many), there is solace in simply knowing that Grex is an alternative.
I can't speak for others, but I can say that that's why I've bothered to post
about this. You have a community. Don't screw it up.
|
scott
|
|
response 69 of 184:
|
Feb 1 20:43 UTC 2004 |
Re 68:
Ignoring your Nazi comparison...
"Honestly though, what's the point of claiming to support something, when
you're not prepared to support it?"
There's a difference between supporting something and rigidly insisting that
everything done by everybody must match that something 100%... and on top of
that demanding that everything must be documented as official policy.
|
jep
|
|
response 70 of 184:
|
Feb 1 20:46 UTC 2004 |
I think there's a difference between the definition of Grex's
principles as seen by Grex non-participants, as opposed to the applied
principles of actual Grexers.
re resp:56: There's no conflict between having principles, and helping
out another person, unless your principles are pretty whacked. If
your principles are so rigid that there's no room for any variation,
no matter what, then there's something wrong with your principles, and
with you. It's like having a principle of self-sufficiency, to the
point where you will never assist another person. That's not a
principle of self-sufficiency; it's a policy of disassociation.
That isn't to say that, if you don't vote for my proposal, your
principles are by definition wrong. You might just think my request
hasn't got enough merit to be worth supporting, but that someone
else's similar request might. Or you might think the remains of those
items would still be worth preserving, and oppose my proposal on those
grounds. But to oppose my proposal because of a principle that, once
entered on Grex, all text must be preserved forever and there must
never be any deviation from that, no matter what... which is what a
few people have said, directly... that is the sort of view which
causes me to put the word "principle" in quotation marks.
|
witzbolt
|
|
response 71 of 184:
|
Feb 1 21:15 UTC 2004 |
My principles are rigid and there's nothing wrong with them.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 72 of 184:
|
Feb 1 21:59 UTC 2004 |
Nice way to blur the issues, jep. I don't think anyone has said "all text
must be preserved forever and there must never be any deviation from that,
no matter what" so it is blatantly dishonest for you to says as much.
Stolen credit card numbers cannot remain posted forever, for instance.
That is far different from what happened in your case. You did not come to
the membership and ask people to voluntarily agree to to your request. You
sought and suceeded in imposing your will on many people who had no idea
what you had done on your behalf could possibly be permitted on a system
that claims to support free and uncensored speech. You then failed to
justify your extraordinary action with anything other than "the item
bothered me and I wanted it to go away." If that is in fact the new
standard, at least for favored grexers, then grex should be ashamed to
even mention free speech as a core principle or tenet of the system.
You've lowered your standards to an ad hoc system with no guiding
principles to provide any sort of predictability or understanding in the
future.
This is also why those ranting about not wanting to have rigid adherence
to "principles" miss the point. If you want to have exceptions, fine.
Just spell them out ahead of time or at least identify the factors that
should be considered when a similar issue arises again.
Welcome to Grex: Where some grexers are more equal than others.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 73 of 184:
|
Feb 1 23:14 UTC 2004 |
re: 69
Ignoring you ignoring where I basically said to ignore the Nazi reference...
"There's a difference between supporting something and rigidly insisting
everything done by everybody must match that something 100%"
And that difference is what, exactly?
"I support free speech, unless one of my friends wants to chill it."?
"I support the rights bestowed upon others, unless it makes someone with the
appropriate history on this system uncomfortable."?
"I support the concept of a free and open system, unless someone gets upset
about how the freedom and openness is applied in ways they don't expect."?
I can understand the various shades of grey in a statement like "Chocolate
ice cream is the best. I support chocolate ice cream." But we're really not
talking about issues that can be taken so subjectively.
How can there be a grey area in "promoting free speech"? Why do you think
conferencing software doesn't allow a non-fw to tamper with the responses of
others?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 74 of 184:
|
Feb 1 23:34 UTC 2004 |
Conferencing software does what its _author_ thinks is right, to the
best of the author's programming ability. It was not handed down from on
high, as the be-all and end-all of human computer-mediated interaction.
Or do you _really_ think that it is right and proper that personal computers
crash and otherwise lose and destroy their user's work at irregular but
frequent intervals? After all, they do it so often that *must* be the
way it is supposed to be.
twinkie, you *know* there are limits to freedom of speech. You *know* there
are limits to the openness of any system. To pretend otherwise is to demean
your argument.
The question is not, "Are there limits?" The question is, "What are the
limits?"
By the way, different packages will have different features. For example,
IIRC, Confer II _did_ allow the item author to delete the item, at any time.
|
naftee
|
|
response 75 of 184:
|
Feb 2 00:29 UTC 2004 |
re 74 Hey guess what? The conferencing systems in use also allow someone else
to delete items. That user is.....THE FAIRWITNESS. Yes, that's right,
they're people with a special responsibility, and unlike scandalous staff
members, are expected to report their actions. That's why it's less likely
for them to commit acts of censorship, _and that's why we have them_.
It's interesting to note that jep did indeed report valerie's actions on the
items he entered, when valerie kept it secret from GreX. Does he deserve
something for reporting his crime after the fact? Maybe he thought someone
would eventually discover that too. I'd like to know your reasoning, jep.
|
jp2
|
|
response 76 of 184:
|
Feb 2 01:04 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 77 of 184:
|
Feb 2 01:17 UTC 2004 |
re: 74
The author creates software that people want. Clearly the functionality is
designed to reflect what the vast majority of the user base wants. A diatribe
about stability is nothing more than a red herring.
Sure, there are limits to free speech. The old "yelling 'fire' in a movie
theater" comes to mind. But we're not talking about that sort of free speech.
We're talking about what's really nothing short of revisionism.
I'm not saying the deletion is akin to yelling "fire!" where there's no fire.
I'm saying it's like Dr. King deciding that he didn't really mean it when he
said he had a dream, and demanding that every reference to August 28th 1963
be wiped from history, along with anyone who ever wrote anything based on or
inspired by it.
Civil rights activists had a right to say "I quite liked it", Klan members
had a right to say "I hated it", et cetera.
Obviously, jep and popcorn are not on the same social or literary plateaus
as the good Doctor, but I think you can see the point here.
And yes, there are limits to the openness of an open system. Nobody's
suggesting that Grex pass out root access to people. If anything, people are
asking that the openness be limited. They're asking that it be closed to the
extent that their contributions not be arbitrarily deleted. They're asking
that access be limited to prevent those with enhanced access from chilling
their right to post, and have their posts seen.
There's so much talk about community, that many are losing sight of what
community is. Be it Grex or M-Net, the community is the content. Users come
and go from both systems, but the content endures. The content is the
foundation of the community, and the content is the basis for newcomers to
easily integrate in to the community.
Without the content, you have nothing but a handful of people who go on
GrexWalk. The instability of the content that exists, and the content that
has yet to be posted, is inherently in danger.
By allowing the deletions to take place, you're setting precedent. You're
saying that years, months, even days from now, Dave can decide that he really
didn't like entering this item, because it made people feel bad that they
didn't get e-mail from Valerie.
The precedent thus far dictates that if Dave has root access (or knows someone
who does), he is well within his rights to delete this item (or have it
deleted). And at this point, who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to
tell him otherwise? Who here is willing to say "That's okay for Valerie Mates
and John Perry, but it's not okay for Dave Cahill."? After all, he's just as
established here as anyone else.
Consider the ramifications of that happening. Consider future members who may
want a historical perspective, but would be denied that by the whim of a
single user.
You can't say "Well, this item carries more weight than Valerie's diary, or
John's ordeal, so it must be preserved." without getting on a *very* slippery
slope of determining the merit of one's posts. Is that worthwhile to you?
|
jp2
|
|
response 78 of 184:
|
Feb 2 01:23 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 79 of 184:
|
Feb 2 01:37 UTC 2004 |
We are more in agreement than you might think, twinkie.
There is no precedent. Someone did something, yes, but a substantial number
of people have agreed that doing that thing was wrong. The membership
is deciding whether that thing should be undone. However the vote goes,
though, one thing is very clear: people don't like the idea of deleting
other people's text. Even if the text is not restored, the sense of the
community has been taken: Delete Items At Your Peril.
I had occasion to ask Marcus about his philosophy and picospan. He noted
that he should eventually drop in and offer his perspective. I don't
think it is any where near as deterministic as you seem to.
|
naftee
|
|
response 80 of 184:
|
Feb 2 02:52 UTC 2004 |
Oh, so even though you *think* that most of the people (who knows, maybe
future members) are in disagreement with what jep/valerie did, you're still
going to let a small number of people who happen to have a membership now have
the only say in this matter, and then go along and say it don't mean much?
Wow, that's messed up.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 81 of 184:
|
Feb 2 03:04 UTC 2004 |
That's the way voting goes, naftee. Those eligible to make the decsion make
it.
|
naftee
|
|
response 82 of 184:
|
Feb 2 03:25 UTC 2004 |
At the expense of the bylaws and human rights?!
|
witzbolt
|
|
response 83 of 184:
|
Feb 2 03:34 UTC 2004 |
for this lowlow price.
|
naftee
|
|
response 84 of 184:
|
Feb 2 03:34 UTC 2004 |
Next they"ll be selling services!
|