|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 184 responses total. |
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!
|
cyklone
|
|
response 85 of 184:
|
Feb 2 04:03 UTC 2004 |
Gelinas says "The question is not, "Are there limits?" The question is, "What
are the limits?""
Could *someone* please answer the last question? Some on grex want to do
personal favors for favored persons but no one seems to want to answer the
obvious question. There's an elephant in the living room people. Deal with
it.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 86 of 184:
|
Feb 2 07:10 UTC 2004 |
We are in the process of answering that question, cyklone.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 87 of 184:
|
Feb 2 09:20 UTC 2004 |
re: 79
There most certainly is precedent. Otherwise, the items would have been
restored.
If polytarp or naftee found a way to start deleting items, would you hold
their restoration to a membership vote? Something tells me you'd join a chorus
of users decrying them as "vandals". (Apologies to polytarp and naftee, but
you're the bad boys du jour here)
I didn't mean to suggest that Marcus was the end-all-be-all voice of how
conferencing systems operate. Either I wasn't clear about that, or you
misinterpreted what I said. Though, I'd be quite interested in his take on
it.
|
jp2
|
|
response 88 of 184:
|
Feb 2 11:34 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 89 of 184:
|
Feb 2 13:54 UTC 2004 |
Re 87:
If polytarp or naftee found a way to delete items? First off it would depend
on whether it was items they themselves had entered, if there's to be a
comparison to Valerie's deletions. But taking a broader case... we would know
that polytarp/nagtee are indeed "bad boys", to use your term. There is
nothing in our policies or principles that says that Grex cannot have memory,
that every single case must assume that the people involved are completely
new to Grex. I suppose you'll start making the usual complaint about
"favorites" again, but again I think you are trying to prevent Grex from being
a community by insisting on rigid interpretation of (in this case) an
essential imaginary rule: that no matter how obnoxious a user becomes, they
are merely expressing "free speech".
|
gull
|
|
response 90 of 184:
|
Feb 2 14:29 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:68: I'm amused by the claim that "hundreds of people" posted to
those items, much less thousands. You make a good argument otherwise,
but rein in the hyperbole a bit. ;>
Re resp:85: No, people aren't ignoring the question. That's what the
vote's for. Also, while it can be argued that the deletion of jep's
items set a precident, there's another vote coming up that may totally
change that. That's how things work here; we vote on stuff. If you're
expecting that if you debate hard enough, you can win by fiat regardless
of how the vote comes out, you're wrong.
Re resp:87: If naftee or polytarp started deleting items, it'd mean
they'd hacked someone else's account. That's a totally different situation.
|
naftee
|
|
response 91 of 184:
|
Feb 2 15:02 UTC 2004 |
That's what you think, bad boy.
|
jep
|
|
response 92 of 184:
|
Feb 2 16:22 UTC 2004 |
re resp:76: What I was saying in resp:70 is that principles which are
so rigid and inflexible they fail to, or cannot, accommodate varying
circumstances are not good principles.
The purpose of moral principles is to guide your actions, to provide
yourself with guidelines for making better decisions and actions. If
your principles force you into taking bad actions, then your principles
are wrong. They're dysfunctional. If holding to your principles
forces you to taking actions you know to be wrong, then they're not
even principles at all. They're rules. Also, they're an inherent
problem, not any kind of solution. They may be more or less of a
problem, depending on whether they provide you with more good answers
or more bad ones.
In the case of the deleted items, I think you ought to be looking at
the amount of good done overall, versus the amount of harm. It's a
value judgement.
I tell you there has been great value to me in having my two items
deleted. I've cited some of why; I've been misquoted a lot about it
but I've given a lot of explanation.
So then, is it worth it to Grex to take that away from me? I think
that's the question a thoughtful voter has to answer.
If your answer is, "I think Grex's principles are that this sort of
thing can never be done, period", well, I guess that's your right, but
I think you're missing something.
|
slynne
|
|
response 93 of 184:
|
Feb 2 17:17 UTC 2004 |
My position on this at the moment is that the items should be restored.
It was not an easy decision for me to come by. I guess I just dont
think it is ok to give some people control over another person's words
here...even if that someone is a little asshole like jp2 and the person
who wants to do the deleting is someone I would like to give
preferential treatment to like jep.
Values dont mean anything unless they get applied to everyone equally.
With that said, I also dont think there is a problem with providing
special favors for special people so I will agree to allow either
valerie or jep to delete/scribble any posts I made in those items.
While I dont feel comfortable giving them power over other people's
words, I do feel it is appropriate to give up control over my own words
in this case.
|
jp2
|
|
response 94 of 184:
|
Feb 2 17:38 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|