|
Grex > Coop13 > #111: A Proposal to Clarify Grex's Stance on Deleting Items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 235 responses total. |
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.
|
tod
|
|
response 89 of 235:
|
Feb 12 19:54 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 90 of 235:
|
Feb 12 20:26 UTC 2004 |
Yeah, and I remember when we were having "meaningful policy debates"
with M-Netters about whether or not it was legal to photocopy driver's
licenses.
The free speech arguments would be meaningful if they weren't so
obviously just another example of a pattern that involves, for example,
arguments about whether it's a "violation of free speech" for some of
naftee's accounts to be locked for trying to fill up agora with large
text files.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 91 of 235:
|
Feb 12 20:38 UTC 2004 |
jp2, you are just so tiresome now. Read this carefully: valerie did
something most peole didn't like. But it was done. staff have no history
of restoring stuff due to vandalism, so it was not their duty to "hop to it"
and restore the killed items. A vote by the membership to compell that
failed. valerie's unauthorized act does not set a precedent that other staff
will use to justify similar rogue acts, even if the items are not restored.
Further, all this does not establish a grex policy of censorship.
I know it it is useless to say it, but I will anyway: Give it up, move on.
|
kip
|
|
response 92 of 235:
|
Feb 12 21:01 UTC 2004 |
Joe, re: 49, in 47 I was wondering about 46. :)
It has become painfully obvious to me that nothing will change Jamie's mind
in regard to the supposed precedent that Valerie's actions have caused.
I don't read the two votes here as stating that items can now be deleted on
request anymore than I would imagine all Grex users hated the color red if
a vote was passed saying apples and strawberries were not everyone's favorite
fruits.
So I'll just try to respectfully agree to disagree with Jamie's interpretation
of the events of the past month.
|
jp2
|
|
response 93 of 235:
|
Feb 12 21:04 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
kip
|
|
response 94 of 235:
|
Feb 12 21:21 UTC 2004 |
Fair enough, an excellent point. Please allow me to rephrase in this way:
I don't see the precedent of Valerie's actions precipitating a new implied
policy of deleting entire items at the author's request.
My dictionary suggested this for precedent:
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:
Precedent \Prec"e*dent\, n.
1. Something done or said that may serve as an example to
authorize a subsequent act of the same kind; an
authoritative example.
[1913 Webster]
I don't view her actions as a valid precedent. I understand and respect
that you do view them as valid precedent.
|
jp2
|
|
response 95 of 235:
|
Feb 12 21:31 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
kip
|
|
response 96 of 235:
|
Feb 12 21:46 UTC 2004 |
I don't think the threat is meaningless. I feel rather certain that if I
decided to unilaterally delete entire items that I would be dismissed from
staff rather quickly and that the items would be restored.
My opinion is that the vote said we're not going to retroactively restore this
first time, but staff had better not go around doing this anymore.
|
jp2
|
|
response 97 of 235:
|
Feb 12 21:53 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 98 of 235:
|
Feb 12 21:57 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
kip
|
|
response 99 of 235:
|
Feb 12 22:00 UTC 2004 |
Sorry, I've often been accused of not being logical. I'm just informing you
of what my opinion on the matter is.
Remember, Grex isn't a game of Nomic and it certainly isn't Constitutional
Law. :)
|