|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 184 responses total. |
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.
|
md
|
|
response 95 of 184:
|
Feb 2 17:40 UTC 2004 |
This might've been asked and answered already, but just so I don't have
to read the whole thing...
Why can't the items be restored, but with valerie's responses all
deleted? People delete their own responses all the time and nobody
cares.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 96 of 184:
|
Feb 2 17:43 UTC 2004 |
That's what the vote is on, md: do we restore the items Valerie deleted?
|
jp2
|
|
response 97 of 184:
|
Feb 2 18:16 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 98 of 184:
|
Feb 2 18:24 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 99 of 184:
|
Feb 2 18:49 UTC 2004 |
Try to keep up there, Michael. ;-)
Valerie doesn't just want her responses removed. She wants
everyone's responses gone because they are about her, and her
family, and her children.
John likewise doesn't want just his comments removed but those
of everyone else in the discussion, because what others have
said may hurt him in the future.
This is going to set some interesting precedent.
|
tod
|
|
response 100 of 184:
|
Feb 2 18:57 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 101 of 184:
|
Feb 2 19:01 UTC 2004 |
re: 89
What difference does it make if they hacked someone's account or not? It's not
as though Valerie had any more permission to do what she did than anyone else
had. Access != permission.
re: 90
I should have used "responses" instead of people. I doubt Grex has "hundreds"
let alone "thousands" of active BBS participants.
|
witzbolt
|
|
response 102 of 184:
|
Feb 2 20:39 UTC 2004 |
i'm ejaculating on your tits.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 103 of 184:
|
Feb 2 22:56 UTC 2004 |
Re #86: I see know evidence that grex is in the process of determining when
it is appropriate to personal favors for favored persons. So far all I am
seeing is an adhocracy in which anyone can make a proposal and allow a vote,
no matter how ridiculous the requests. As mary correctly notes, you *are*
setting a precedent and I have not seen one substantive discussion of how this
will be treated as a precedent and whether future requests will be via the
same process.
At the very least, it seems to me the standard should be that the
"default" is that users control their own words. Certainly that has been
the general rule in the past. To create an exception to that principle
there should be some sort of criteria to be met to justify the exception.
In case ya'll haven't noticed, I have asked for good reasons to jusitify
the exceptions. I've asked jep to point me to old posts of his where his
thoughts are explained coherently. He hasn't done so. He has said it has
nothing to do with legal implications. He says he wished a similar item
was available to him. He says he doesn't want to have to explain anything
to his son. As I mentioned elsewhere, that cat is out of the bag. His son
will end up finding these coop items instead. Nor has *ANYONE* addressed
my scenario in which a drug addict, sex addict, etc. could post an
extremely helpful and informative item on addiction and then claim it
should be deleted based on jep's selfish "I don't want my son to know"
precedent. Such a precedent is incredibly damaging to grex.
And it would be nice if jep and some of his supporters could argue
honestly about this. It is not honest to say the deleted posts of others
have little or no value when jep himself wished such an item existed
before. And no one has argued for an absolute inflexible "principle".
The rules against posting credit card numbers are one example. So ditch
the red herrings and start talking about on what grounds you will
recognize exceptional requests for deleting the words of others. What
criteria should be applied? Don't kid yourselves. This is ALL about
precedent.
|
md
|
|
response 104 of 184:
|
Feb 3 00:08 UTC 2004 |
Okay, here are some ferinstances. Should the following responses *by
other participants* be deleted from an item from which one participant
wants his or her own responses deleted. Let's call the person who
wants his or her own responses by the his-or-her name of "Leslie."
1. So, Leslie, you say your Visa card number is 1234567890?
2. But Leslie, why on earth would you want to have sex with little boys?
3. I agree, Leslie, I don't think taking your nextdoor neighbor's old
laptop counts as stealing, if you're sure they weren't using it.
4. Er, Leslie, I don't think you should be saying stuff like that
here. What if the FBI is reading this item?
5. Leslie, you're paying way too much for your Xanax.
6. Look on the bright side, Leslie: if your wife is having an affair,
that means you can have one, too, guilt-free!
7. But Leslie, there are lots of guys who like fat women. Plus, if
you're just 5'4" 180 lbs, that doesn't sound fat to me at all.
8. Good grief, Leslie, how many times have you been fired this year?
9. So, Leslie, do you really think your breast milk is vegan because
*you're* vegan? What are you, some kind of an idiot?
10. Leslie thinks the whole world has to stop and feel sorry for her
just because her boyfriend dumped her. What a whining loser!
11. Leslie is nothing but an antiabortion christian fundamentalist
whacko.
12. Grow up, Leslie, you knew your wife was flat-chested when you
married her.
13. Leslie, does your girlfriend know you're HIV positive?
14. Leslie, when you say your penis is 3" long erect, which side are
you measuring it on?
15. Leslie is under *no* obligation to tell his employer he's addicted
to heroin!
16. Btw, Leslie, thanks for entering the nuclear bomb specs. I didn't
know it was that easy to make.
|