|
Grex > Coop13 > #76: member initiative: do not restore two items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 357 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 8 of 357:
| 
Jan 9 20:24 UTC 2004 |
I disagree that those items should not be restored. Every time items get mass
deleted, posts get mass deleted .etc, you are essentially re-writing and
revising grex's history. Grex has been like a great experiment, and
preserving what it was, and what it has become, is important. This is why
I don't like Valerie mass deleting all her posts. In how many old items is
she taking other people's comments out of context by removing her posts to
which they were replying. Same thing with JEP removing his posts. This
is affecting not just their posts, but to the posts of those who
participated in those items.
Suppose two users have a heated argument in an item, and then one of the
users removes all their posts. Now anybody reading that item will only
see the other user's posts, and not have the context of the whole
discussion, and that other user could look bad. Is that fair to the other
user? Does one user have the right to tear large holes in an item and
potentially embarrass other users who posted in that item in the process?
|
flem
|
|
response 9 of 357:
|
Jan 9 20:31 UTC 2004 |
I'm gonna have to vote to restore these items if the proposal comes up.
I think that preventing the existence of a precedent for deleting other
people's writing is more important to Grex than preventing the narrow
risk that Jep might be embarrassed by something written by someone else
in those items. Note that if these items are to be restored, we should
of course make sure to remove jep's responses first if that's what he
wants.
|
richard
|
|
response 10 of 357:
|
Jan 9 20:35 UTC 2004 |
As I posted in previous item, I think that a user should only be able to
scribble their items, and thereby potentially take other users comments in
those items out of context, if it is reasonable to think that those other
users are still around and would have the opportunity to clarify their
comments. Grex should fully protect anything posted more than a year ago as
"historical" and disallow scribbling of responses that old or older. When
people post to grex, they have the right to assume that anything they post
won't be taken out of context years down the line by some user who suddenly
goes back and scribbles and puts holes in old items.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 11 of 357:
|
Jan 9 20:37 UTC 2004 |
Unfortunately, that aspect was decided on when they decided to do away
with the scribble log.
jep, if your items are restored, and only your posts are deleted,
would this serve your purpose? (I never really read those items
through, so I wouldn't know.) What if we could get people who entered
stuff that made obvious responses to what you said to delete their
posts? I know this would take time, but I think it could be done. Most
people who responded really cared about you, and I don't see them not
doing this if it makes you feel better.
I hate to see your items becoming the reason for allowing other users
to delete items they've entered. We've already seen a huge loss to the
system in terms of mass-scribbles, and it would be a shame to see any
more.
|
other
|
|
response 12 of 357:
|
Jan 9 20:44 UTC 2004 |
In a reversal of my position on the publicly readable scribble log
(due to copyright concerns primarily), I'll say this:
Under absolutely no circumstances should posts which were removed by
their proper owners be restored, even in the process of restoring
comments made by others in response to or about those removed posts.
Also, if any posts not made by the users who removed them or
requested their removal are restored, any quotes of a full sentence
or more from the properly removed text should also not be restored,
but should be replaced by something along the lines of:
[quotation removed by request of original owner/poster]
Richard, your notion of "fairness" is remarkable only for its
convoluted and self-serving nature.
|
richard
|
|
response 13 of 357:
|
Jan 9 20:51 UTC 2004 |
bullshit other, fairness to one isn't fairness to all, and if I or any other
user post in a conference, we have the right to think that if we leave the
conf or the board, that our comments won't be later taken out of context.
That items won't be cut up. If the items are new and the user(s) affected
are still around, thats not an issue. But if a period of time has passed,
and some or most of the users who posted in that item are no longer around,
it is not fair for that item to be retroactively cut up. Why can't the
scribble command be limited so it can't be used on posts over a year old?
|
jp2
|
|
response 14 of 357:
|
Jan 9 20:54 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 15 of 357:
|
Jan 9 20:57 UTC 2004 |
I understand what richard is saying. About a year ago, polytarp made
me make an apology in bbs for something (the details are hazy), but
he later went in and scribbled all his posts. While I wasn't and am
not upset about the result, it did make me look a little ridiculous
with all his posts gone, and just my words.
I personally think the scribble command should be revoked. But that's
another issue.
|
jp2
|
|
response 16 of 357:
|
Jan 9 20:57 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 17 of 357:
|
Jan 9 21:02 UTC 2004 |
re 13:
You're right. You have the right to think anything you want. You
do not, never have, and never will have the right to make sure
anything you say, in any medium, will always and forever be
presented only in the context in which it was originally said, which
is exactly what you are trying to say you have the right to expect.
I challenge you to correct me.
|
richard
|
|
response 18 of 357:
|
Jan 9 21:08 UTC 2004 |
I think actually that any user who posted during the years that the scribble
log was available, thereby posted under the assumption that other people's
comments would be available and people would always be able to see the
context.
Therefore staff should have closed the scribble log only for new posts.
Valerie is now going back and deleting eight or ten year old items, where
people posted thinking the comments to which they were replying would always
be available, even if scribbled, in the log. It is not fair to those old
posters who posted in good faith thinking the scribble log would be
around, for Valerie to go back now and delete her posts in those items now
when that log is no longer around. Staff should restore
everything deleted this week via backup tapes, and then make it so you
can no longer scribble posts that were made when the scribble log was
open, because it isn't open now and it isn't fair to other users
|
jp2
|
|
response 19 of 357:
|
Jan 9 21:12 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 20 of 357:
|
Jan 9 21:16 UTC 2004 |
re #17...Other, this isn't a matter of "rights", it is a matter of decency.
I am saying that Grex, for historical reasons, should strive to maintain the
integrity of its old items, and should want to protect its old or former
users. Anyone who posts on Grex should be able to expect that they can leave
this board, and not have what they posted here taken out of context five or
ten years down the line.
In real life, if this was a real town hall, you can't go back and pretend
conversations never happened. Real time conversations happen in the context
of a time and a moment.
Either reopen the scribble log OR disallow the scribbling of old posts mor
than a year old altogether. How else can you be fair to those who posted here
in good faith in the past under different rules?
|
jep
|
|
response 21 of 357:
|
Jan 9 21:21 UTC 2004 |
re resp:4: I am not embarrassed by anything I wrote two years ago. I
have gotten those two items deleted solely because I think the contents
could come to hurt me, and/or hurt my son. Now I want them to stay
deleted so nothing bad comes of them now, for either of us.
I asked for help in Agora when I entered those items, and I got it. I
am extremely grateful for the great kindness that people offered me
during that period of my life. I believe the participants in those
items saved my life. I am certain they/you helped me to avoid doing
things which I would have regretted. Please don't read any lack of
gratitude into this proposal.
Those items were very important to me two years ago, when I created
them and while I was participating in them. I was in miserable shape
then. I am better now. I'm in better position to decide whether I
want the items around. I don't want them around.
|
jp2
|
|
response 22 of 357:
|
Jan 9 21:21 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 23 of 357:
|
Jan 9 21:26 UTC 2004 |
If I could be objective about this, I would have to agree that the
items should be restored. I am not feeling very objective right now
though. I really like jep and I totally understand his reasons for
wanting those items deleted. I think if this came up for a membership
vote, I would vote to leave them deleted. If they ever are restored, I
would not mind it if my posts were purged from the item.
|
willcome
|
|
response 24 of 357:
|
Jan 9 21:28 UTC 2004 |
I hope they stay deleted.
|
richard
|
|
response 25 of 357:
|
Jan 9 21:33 UTC 2004 |
jp2 Im not worried about myself, I can go back and scribble my own posts in
those items if I want because I'm still here. But what about users who have
left and are no longer around? They can't defend themselves from having their
comments being newly misinterpreted. If Grex will not change current policy,
they should take all old, not-current conferences off the board. Those
conferences, like all the old coops and all the old agoras, are there for
historical purposes. There comes a point where those confs need not be ever
again altered in any way, becuase the users of those conferences most
of them are no longer around. Valerie is altering those conferences. She
was wrong in what she did because if affected others and not just her.
It is like if a person who owns the rights to a documentary film where people
are interviewed, and years later they go back and edit the film, take people's
comments out of context by removing certain content, and re-releases the film.
How is that fair to the people who originally participated in that project
for the director, years later and embittered, to go back and make them look
bad retroactively even if that wasn't the intent?
How can Grex ask people to post here in good faith if staff will not
protect the integrity of what they posted once the conference has closed
and been archived.
|
other
|
|
response 26 of 357:
|
Jan 9 21:34 UTC 2004 |
To reiterate/reinforce Jamie's most salient point, I had never heard
of the scribble log until very shortly before the proposal to close
it.
To reiterate my initial point, Richard, your concept of fairness is
utterly convoluted and serves desires you obviously have and are
ascribing to everyone else possible and it just doesn't hold up.
My comment, by the way, was in resp:12
> ===========
> #10 of 24 by (richard) on Fri Jan 9 15:35:36 2004:
>
> ...When people post to grex, they have the right to assume that
> anything they post won't be taken out of context...
> ===========
> ===========
> 20 of 24 by (richard) on Fri Jan 9 16:16:26 2004:
>
> re #17...Other, this isn't a matter of "rights"
> ===========
|
jep
|
|
response 27 of 357:
|
Jan 9 21:37 UTC 2004 |
As far as letting me scribble my responses from those items, then re-
posting the items... how would the items be restored but kept so only I
can see them, until I'm done scribbling?
Who is going to go through any responses from others which I request to
be deleted, and delete them?
If the items are restored, I will certainly begin by removing all of my
responses from them. I think I wrote about 2/3 of the responses in
those two items. I don't think the discussions will be quite the same
after I'm done.
The items are deleted now. All I am asking is that they be left
deleted.
Richard, you've brought up the issue of fairness. Is it "fair" that my
son (then age 5, now 7) be subjected to the results of whatever garbage
I posted when I was so despondent I was saying anything? Do you think
the right of Grex users to plow through old items is so great that he
should just have to live with what I posted?
Just let the items be deleted. Leave them alone. I'm really sorry for
causing problems to other people by this action, but in the case of
these two items, I am pretty sure I care more about them than everyone
else on Grex combined. I'm asking for a break from Grex. It's
completely outside of normal system policy. I'm asking for it to be
done that way anyway.
|
jp2
|
|
response 28 of 357:
|
Jan 9 21:37 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 29 of 357:
|
Jan 9 21:38 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 30 of 357:
|
Jan 9 21:53 UTC 2004 |
Other, what is convoluted about wanting the words of old users who are no
longer around to be protected. If people posted here in good faith, using
their names, and they have their words taken out of context years later when
they aren't around to defend themselves, how is that fair? Grex is on the
web, anybody can go read these old confs. Other, you have no sense of
decency if you can't see how some old user's rep could potentially be damaged
by old confs getting cut up by an embittered user.
Posting here is like if you published something in a newspaper and a magazine.
When you do that you can't take it back, because the publications are out
there. If I send a letter to the editor of a newspaper and they publish it,
I can't go back and ask them to edit the letter out of future microfilm copies
of the paper. Grex is publishing what you say, it is sending it out, making
it available on the web. Why does Grex not allow editing of posted items?
I thought it was the taking other posts "out of context" in the process
argument. I think it is unfair to allow scribbling, or editing for that
matter, of items that are so old that it is reasonable to think that affected
users might not be around to defend or clarify themselves.
That Other is called decency. Grex can't grow as a conferencing environment
if it does not show that decency, if it does not show that it will protect
its past
|
flem
|
|
response 31 of 357:
|
Jan 9 22:20 UTC 2004 |
jep wrote in #21
> I'm in better position to decide whether I
> want the items around. I don't want them around.
Frankly, jep, I don't think it's any of your business whether the item
is around. Ok, well, maybe you feel it's important to you that the item
be gone in entirety; I'm not sure why. But you don't have the right to
ask that of grex. What you can do is two things: you can scribble all
of your responses, and you can ask for help again: ask people
sympathetic to you to scribble their responses in that item themselves.
I'd be quite willing to do that if you asked nicely; I don't care about
anything I may have written in them. (I don't even really remember if I
responded, though I know I read them carefully)
I think you're going to have to get used to the fact that there are
those of us who care enough about what has happened and about doing the
right thing about it that we're not just going to let it drop without a
fight.
|
gull
|
|
response 32 of 357:
|
Jan 9 22:30 UTC 2004 |
I will vote against this proposal if it comes to a vote. I'll do this
not because of my feelings about the overall issue, but because I think
that member votes about specific users are a bad idea in general.
|