|
Grex > Coop13 > #76: member initiative: do not restore two items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 357 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 62 of 357:
| 
Jan 11 02:11 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 63 of 357:
|
Jan 11 04:16 UTC 2004 |
If this proposal comes to a member vote, it will be phrased as an
exception to other rules which might exist. I am asking the users to
grant me a special case exemption from the rule (if one exists) that
an individual cannot ask for an item to be removed. My reasons for
special treatment are stated in resp:1.
I am not trying to change or set any policy. This proposal is not a
change in policy.
|
cross
|
|
response 64 of 357:
|
Jan 11 04:17 UTC 2004 |
It is the implicit condonment of Valerie's actions that a yes vote on
this issue would represent that worries me (as it worries gull). However,
in fairness to jep, I think the items can remain retired if the original
participants in the threads agree that they would scribble their responses
if asked. If there were a few holdouts, their responses could be restored.
I think the result would be sufficiently devoid of context so as to
asuague jep's fears about what he wrote coming back to bite him.
|
jep
|
|
response 65 of 357:
|
Jan 11 05:15 UTC 2004 |
re resp:64: Retired, as in applying a Picospan "retire" command, Dan?
I could do that with any item I've ever entered, including this one,
but it doesn't prevent anyone from reading anything by itself.
Let's look at what else you're proposing. Obviously, at the very
minimum, I will not be leaving any of my responses in those items.
(Or I could review all of my responses and exclude the individual ones
I don't want, but I don't think I want to do that.)
Before the items are to be restored, presumably, someone is going to
clean out any responses of any other users who agree to have theirs
removed as well. That means all of those people have to be contacted
by someone -- before the items are restored, right? -- and given the
opportunity to exclude their responses, too. Do they all get to
review what they wrote before they decide whether it's to be restored?
Who's going to handle all of that? One of the staff, which has
already lost two members in the last few weeks? Me? Who?
I'd have to ask you to make your proposal a separate proposal, by the
way. I'm certainly not proposing anything like what you said.
|
jp2
|
|
response 66 of 357:
|
Jan 11 14:19 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 67 of 357:
|
Jan 11 15:00 UTC 2004 |
A "yes" vote does NOT condone Valerie's actions. The items should not have
been deleted in the way that they were.
Now that they have been deleted, though, they should NOT be restored.
Approving this proposal may set a precedent, but the precedent will be quickly
made moot, but an explicit change in policy. It will not be possible to
argue, "He got to, so I should be able to, too," because of all the argument
around this issue: It is very clear to any reasonable person (and we don't
worry about unreasonable ones) that this *is* an exception, in an
exceptional situation.
|
tod
|
|
response 68 of 357:
|
Jan 11 15:19 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 69 of 357:
|
Jan 11 15:21 UTC 2004 |
Because restoring them gives them more attention than they deserve.
|
jp2
|
|
response 70 of 357:
|
Jan 11 15:31 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 71 of 357:
|
Jan 11 15:59 UTC 2004 |
Restore them minus her comments.
|
cross
|
|
response 72 of 357:
|
Jan 11 16:38 UTC 2004 |
Regarding #65; No, not as in the Picospan retire command. I meant retire
in the sense that the items (or, rather, the responses) are currently gone.
And I think that you should take the responsibility of asking whomever you
feel is appropriate for permission to scribble their responses.
If jp2 is the only person who wants his comments restored, I'm willing to
bet the result will be pretty obscure; certainly so much so that no harm
from its existance on grex could befall you or your son. And yes, nothing
would be put back in place until all responses which are going to be
scribbled are.
|
polygon
|
|
response 73 of 357:
|
Jan 11 16:47 UTC 2004 |
Re 67. I agree and also endorse a "yes" vote on this as a means of
granting an exception in an exceptional situation.
|
naftee
|
|
response 74 of 357:
|
Jan 11 20:45 UTC 2004 |
I agree entirely with responses #61 and #62.
|
willcome
|
|
response 75 of 357:
|
Jan 11 20:59 UTC 2004 |
You agree with disingenously complicating argued issues to win?
|
richard
|
|
response 76 of 357:
|
Jan 11 22:24 UTC 2004 |
I posted in these items, I would like my posts restored. I believe I posted
in good faith that the only one who would ever remove or alter my words, would
be me. I think granting JEP an exception would only show that staff is more
concerned with his rights than with the rights of every other user. It won't
kill JEP to have to go back and scribble his own posts in those items. It
is what he should have done in the first place instead of asking Valerie to
delete the items entirely.
I would ask that if staff does not restore these items, that they make the
original text of the item available by email to all those who participated
in the items, so that they may make a decision on their own as to whether to
re-post their words, only their words, in another item or another conference.
I believe that had proper notice been given that these items were to be
deleted, we'd have had the opportunity to copy our posts in those items and
save them, or re-post them in a different context.
|
richard
|
|
response 77 of 357:
|
Jan 11 22:33 UTC 2004 |
In fact why not vote that staff restore the items, but agree to give JEP
private notice that the restoral has taken place, before the rest of us are
told about it, so he has a period of time to go scribble all his posts? How
long could it possibly take for JEP to scribble his posts in those items
anyway?
|
jp2
|
|
response 78 of 357:
|
Jan 11 22:35 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 79 of 357:
|
Jan 11 23:17 UTC 2004 |
re 75 The way GreXers complicate issues is quite ingenious, I'd have to say.
|
keesan
|
|
response 80 of 357:
|
Jan 12 01:05 UTC 2004 |
Staff happens to have other important things to do besides undelete items or
mail copies of them to people.
|
naftee
|
|
response 81 of 357:
|
Jan 12 01:12 UTC 2004 |
And yet, they answer your elementary questions in the system problems' item,
every day. Figure that.
|
jep
|
|
response 82 of 357:
|
Jan 12 01:19 UTC 2004 |
re resp:77: Why don't you enter a member proposal to that effect,
Richard? Then if this one fails, that one might take effect. Maybe
that one would take precedence; I don't know.
This item is about my proposal, which I am not going to alter in the
way that you suggest.
|
naftee
|
|
response 83 of 357:
|
Jan 12 01:27 UTC 2004 |
In that case, your proposal will fail. Plain and simple.
|
janc
|
|
response 84 of 357:
|
Jan 12 02:08 UTC 2004 |
An extremely small number of voices have been heard from in this item.
I don't think you have any basis for you opinion.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 85 of 357:
|
Jan 12 02:31 UTC 2004 |
(Lots of people respond in the Systems Problems item. Very few of them are
staff members.)
|
jep
|
|
response 86 of 357:
|
Jan 12 03:03 UTC 2004 |
I will be asking the members of Grex to help me, and I think they will
respond favorably to a request like that.
|