|
Grex > Coop13 > #111: A Proposal to Clarify Grex's Stance on Deleting Items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 235 responses total. |
albaugh
|
|
response 64 of 235:
| 
Feb 10 19:19 UTC 2004 |
No, there is nothing in the proposal to limit (by policy only) item killing
that mandates that staff will immediate restore items killed in violation.
You will be right back to where we were with valerie's and jep's items.
Thankfully, I don't see that as being a common occurrence, in fact I expect
it to be a rare occurrence. Therefore I'm not overly concerned about a policy
being adopted or not.
By all means, try to get a policy passed that makes sense, is fair, and
clearly lays out the norms. Just don't expect it to deter rogue FW / staff
who are willing to "go out in a blaze of glory".
|
robh
|
|
response 65 of 235:
|
Feb 10 21:10 UTC 2004 |
Re 57 - Not particularly, but thanks for asking, bully.
|
gull
|
|
response 66 of 235:
|
Feb 11 03:57 UTC 2004 |
I think resp:64 is right in that a policy isn't needed to protect
against valerie's original deletion. No policy is going to save you
from rogue staff. What we do need is a policy that can address the
situation jep's request got us in. His item's deletion created a
situation where it appears users have a right to request that their
items be removed by staff. We need a policy if we want to settle
whether or not that's the case.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 67 of 235:
|
Feb 11 21:19 UTC 2004 |
From what little I've read, I'm not sure that anyone else with staff / cfadm
capabilities would have unilaterally acted on jep's request the way that
valerie did. Thus I don't have a great fear if no policy allowing item
deletion by request is passed - without a policy, it's not likely to happen.
|
gull
|
|
response 68 of 235:
|
Feb 11 21:31 UTC 2004 |
But it leaves us in a situation where we have no way of explaining why
jep's items were deleted, but items that (for example) jp2 asks to be
deleted are not. "We have a policy now" is a pretty good explanation.
|
jp2
|
|
response 69 of 235:
|
Feb 11 21:50 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 70 of 235:
|
Feb 11 22:27 UTC 2004 |
I have asked too and all people do is make fun of me :(
|
gelinas
|
|
response 71 of 235:
|
Feb 12 00:42 UTC 2004 |
No, we don't have a "policy." We _do_ have a "sense of the community"
that items should not be deleted Just Because the item author asks for it.
In fact, even valerie admitted as much, when she didn't delete jp2's
item 39, as he requested. Since she has been the only staff member to
delete items on that ground, it seems fairly obvious to me that, in the
absence of a membership vote explicitly establishing a policy of "delete
on request of item author," it's not going to happen again.
I would, for future reference, prefer to have a clearer sense of the
community. 'Twould probably be best 'twere a policy or membership proposal.
|
tod
|
|
response 72 of 235:
|
Feb 12 00:44 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 73 of 235:
|
Feb 12 01:04 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 74 of 235:
|
Feb 12 01:26 UTC 2004 |
No. Every current staff member is aware that deleting an item on request is
-not- a policy that everyone agrees to, that in fact it would lead to a hue
and cry in Coop.
|
jp2
|
|
response 75 of 235:
|
Feb 12 01:30 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 76 of 235:
|
Feb 12 01:48 UTC 2004 |
Look at the obvious:
If item deletion per request were never a staff policy, why was that specific
event brought to a vote?
Please answer that.
|
jp2
|
|
response 77 of 235:
|
Feb 12 02:41 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 78 of 235:
|
Feb 12 03:37 UTC 2004 |
It was brought to a vote because jp2 seems to find it amusing.
|
jp2
|
|
response 79 of 235:
|
Feb 12 13:47 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
rational
|
|
response 80 of 235:
|
Feb 12 13:54 UTC 2004 |
slip.
|
gull
|
|
response 81 of 235:
|
Feb 12 14:26 UTC 2004 |
I'm getting really tired of jp2 and cyklone insisting they should be
able to dictate Grex policy to the rest of us.
|
jp2
|
|
response 82 of 235:
|
Feb 12 14:28 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 83 of 235:
|
Feb 12 15:09 UTC 2004 |
re 81 And what makes you think your ideas of GreX policy our 'better'? In
fact, they're worse! You've already gotten rid of two upstanding users.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 84 of 235:
|
Feb 12 17:44 UTC 2004 |
Re #81: And I'm getting really tired of having my words misstated by people
like you and jep.
|
tod
|
|
response 85 of 235:
|
Feb 12 18:41 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
iggy
|
|
response 86 of 235:
|
Feb 12 19:28 UTC 2004 |
I still don't understand the US vs THEM point that gull professes in
nearly every response. It would be easier to understand his point
if he clarified what he means.
|
gull
|
|
response 87 of 235:
|
Feb 12 19:34 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:85: If you don't like the way Grex is run, why do you have an
account here? It seems to me like you're only here to make trouble.
Just like jp2, who is such a poor loser he's copy-and-pasted responses
to a large number of items in agora about how he's afraid his posts will
get scribbled.
I'm sick of the conference crapfloods, pointless policy debates, staff
abuse, and endless backbiting and carping that a certain group of
M-Netters come here to cause. I tolerated it for a while, and I even
supported some of jp2's arguments when I thought he was genuinely
interested in improving things. But it's gradually become obvious to me
that, like naftee, he's just interested in making trouble. His methods
are just more cleverly disguised.
I can only assume this is just some kind of sick game for you people.
|
jp2
|
|
response 88 of 235:
|
Feb 12 19:46 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|