Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Well, since at least one innocent member of our community feels
    oppressed by the policy cited, let's make this note a referendum
    as we've done in the past.
    
    I won't go into great detail about the behavior --"guerrilla noting"--
    the policy is meant to address, as we've recently had 2 clear examples
    of the pattern:  write a provocative note, collect n responses, then
    avoid responsibility by deleting the original and one's own responses.
    
    Is that behavior in fact a problem?  If it is, how should our community
    address it?  It has been proposed that the moderators set every
    such note hidden/nowrite, but I for one haven't the energy to go
    around "picking up after" someone whose goal is to make a mess.
    We need a more general, less interventionist solution.
    
    Please let us have your views?
    
    						in Sisterhood,
    						=maggie
    
    

    Maggie, that long paragraph feels very heavy-handed, and not much
    like your usual style.
    
    Especially calling the supervisor.
    
    I think that Carol's suggestion of not engaging with infantile noting
    behavior is by far the best, since attention is the object of the
    game.
    
    As moderator of another file, I know that moderators often get mail
    from other noters when there is a problem.  I think that you and
    Bonnie will get mail outside of the file and complaints in the file
    when there is a large enough problem to warrant taking action. 
    At that point, you can contact the offending parties.  If noters
    continue to disrupt a conference, you can always contact a supervisor.
    But I see that as a last resort.  
    
    It's annoying and somewhat boring to have people make a stir just
    for the attention, but that's what the "next unseen" key is for!
                                                                    
    Holly

    ...and I totally support whatever the moderators decide to do, since
    you have done a wonderful (and quite laissez-faire) job to date.
    
    Bugsy, too.
    
    :-)

    The noting community is not so very different from the world, is
    it not?  Surely we can handle different personality types 
    (bizarre though some of them may be :-) ) without resorting to
    "communicating to one's supervisor".  
    
    If we allow our little noting diversions to spill over into the 
    working community we will surely toll the death knell for notes in this
    corporation.  We are all professional adults here, not little girls
    in need of protection, and we are well able to function in an electronic
    environment without over-reacting to the silly, the annoying or
    the bizarre.  
    
    The moderator always has the option to write-lock any note she feels
    is inappropriate and the rest of us don't really have to read any note 
    (or noter) that annoys us.  
    
    How about ostracism instead?

    Contact the Supervisor?

    Surely, you must be kidding.

I think the author should always have the right to delete his/her
note.  On the other hand, the author should have no complaint if
someone incorporates the note into a subsequent note or reply. 

As to whether the moderators should delete anything that they feel is
inappropriate for the notefile as a whole, I'm of two minds. On the
one hand, the moderators have publicly accepted responsibility for the
discussion; on the other hand, at least one other notesfile has had a
history of the moderators deleting anything they disagree with; which
I construe as harassment of people with unpopular opinions. (As if I
were to delete all pro-smoking notes from NO_SMOKING, which I
moderate.) 

This file seems to be self-policing -- ignoring the occasional
outbursts of immaturity would seem to be the right step. 

Martin.

I've found the guerrilla noting (nice term, who coined it?) boring at best
and think we should give our extremely able moderators some support in
dealing with these mentally-not-out-of-diapers folks. 

On the stated policy, I vote no if only because folks should be able to
freely delete their own responses.  Several times on rereading a reply or
note I've written I've thought "Ouch! That's doesn't sound like what I want
to say" and deleted and rewritten the note.  I will say that in most cases
there have not been following replies.  I'm not so liberal as to be into
the socialist habit of rewriting history. 

How about taking this notes files "members only?" Anybody can get
membership but guerrilla noting is a capital offense (at least for one's
membership in the conference).  Judgment by one's peers.  Extra work for
the moderators, might discourage new folks.  Don't know. 

I reserve the right to change this to a "Yes" vote for the stated policy if
nothing else can be agreed upon.  Given recent history, this closet
bureaucrat thinks we need something.

- Byron

    It seems appropriate to allow someone to remove a note they have
    inserted.  For example, if they write something which they find
    later is interpreted in a way not originally intended.  
    
    I, for example, was surprised that my note mentioning that the Mormons
    had exhibited less-than-normal prejudice against Jews in the post WWII
    times, coupled with the fact that Mormons have a history of showing
    prejudice against blacks and Indians, allowed people to get angry
    because they thought the statement meant that Mormons have no
    prejudices.  I would like to meet someone who had no prejudices.  I
    never have.  Anyway, I considered deleting my reply (not knowing
    that I wasn't allowed to; I don't always read all the notes here).

    Beryl

    i think one should always have the ability to delete one's own posting.
    
    i think the best way to deal with idiot-postings is to ignore them.
    
    /bruce

    And while it may be inconsiderate of later readers (read: _much_
    later), I would not feel comfortable putting replies on personal
    subjects if I did not know i could delete them later, when the
    discussion is no longer current.
    
    Lee

        Much though I find "guerilla noting" to be troublesome, I'm
        afraid I, too, feel that the common noter needs to have the
        right to correct his or her errors, and that deleting one's
        notes should be  permitted.
        
        On the other hand, we do need to do something about "notes
        sociopaths". (Boy, this issue is coining all sorts of good
        jargon.) One of the tools for managing these folk is the option
        of taking up noting misbehavior with the management of the
        offending party. Personally, I am tired of reading notes by
        people who feel it necessary to harrass and insult either
        individuals or groups. If the moderators of WomanNotes feel that
        anyone's behavior in this file is sufficiently outside of the
        rules and they can't get it stopped by contacting the offender,
        I would support them in turning the problem over to the
        offender's management. 
        
        As to protecting against people deleting their own notes, you
        are only playing into their hands, playing their game by their
        rules. I have it direct from one of the major offenders in this
        realm that he has a scheme for defeating that tactic that his
        "opponents" will just hate. Do you really want to find out what
        new tricks this sort of person is cooking up? Me either.
        
        As to endangering all of employee interest noting, I think we've
        been frightened of this bogey man long enough. Employee interest
        noting is pretty well established. If well respected and well
        established members of the DEC noting community stand together
        and refuse to let a few bad apple sour things, I think we can
        effectively use the system against those who who use notes to
        harrass. We just need to play by the rules.
        
        For the record, the rules to play by are these.
            
            1) Do NOT respond in kind. If you have been provoked
            into playing the game before, stop it now. 
            
            2) When something really offensive shows up, send mail
            to the offender copying the moderator. Keep a copy of
            your own. Explain that it is offensive. Request that it
            stop. 
            
            3) If it continues, send firmer mail demanding that it
            stop and indicating that you will persue officaial
            channels if it doesn't. 
            
            4) If it continues you want to contact your personnel
            and the offender's management. Make it clear to them
            that it is not the medium that is at fault, but one
            offensive person.
            
            5) Ignore all "antics". Deal only with the clearly
            offensive. Do not even respond to the "notes
            sociopaths". 
            
            6) Moderators, file all complaints you get, do not
            delete them.
        
        By the way, these steps are more than you have to do by DEC
        policy. You can burn the clown's tail much faster--if your own
        nose is clean. 
        
        JimB.

		Personally I think there are two situations:
        
        	I don't think the writer of a topic (n.0) should delete
        it without the moderators permission: in general this makes the
        discussion that follows meaningless. If the topic is wrong then
        a moderator should probably remove the note and all replies. I believe
        the correct technique in this case is to set your topic hidden and
        send mail to a moderator.
        
        	A different situation applies to responses: I believe that
        a writer has every right to reconsider the wisdom of a reply and
        quietly remove it. If a reply has been replied to then this makes
        the discussion somewhat opaque, but this could also be dealt with
        by hiding the note and mailing the moderator (or perhaps by writing
        a new response explaining why you are removing your note...)
        
        /. Ian .\

    Just a little two cents added here, as libation for my starving
    soul...
    
    I think that deleting one's notes smacks of taking your football
    and going home.
    
    I also think that MAYBE (just MAYBE) if it weren't so easy to back
    out of, maybe some folks would THINK before they type.  We can't
    take back words we say.... why should we be given the license in
    this medium to no longer be accountable for that?
    
    But, to please the liberals and flag-wavers among us, might we suggest
    that the noter who intends to delete his notes SAY SO in the note
    in question so that his/her reasons can be more clearly understood
    and we won't assume that hit-and-run noting his taking place???
    
    Then, delete away after 24 hours....
    
    You may only THINK you're being misunderstood.... you'll at least
    give us the chance to confirm it. :*)
    
    Bugsy

        Another problem about deleting the base note is that it throws
        ownership (who can write-lock or change the title of a note)
        into a cocked hat. It makes it very hard for the moderator
        to then control the situation.
        
        JimB.

    I agree with the notion that base notes should not be deleted,
    except by a moderator, while users should be able to delete
    replies they have written.  Jim Burrows outline about how to
    handle sociopaths sounds good to me: let's not play the game,
    and let's be serious about filing complaints via mail with  
    the moderators.  The moderators can then communicate with
    the employee's supervisor, as they see fit.

    RE: .16
    
    JimB.'s outline about how to deal with "notes sociopaths" sounds
    reasonable to me, too, except for the fact that notes sociopaths
    are *NOT* reasonable people.  If they were reasonable, they would
    never do these things in the first place.
    
    Mail to the offenders and moderators has been done in the past.
    Also -- refusing to respond in kind has been done in the past, too.
    
    No matter what we do or don't do, the person stops after 24-48 hours
    on his own.  (It's the notes equivalent of having a boil in a very
    inconvenient part of the anatomy -- as annoying as it is, you know
    that eventually it will run its course and go away on its own.)
    
    Personally, I disagree with calling the person's supervisor.  As
    much as I would like to strangle a certain notes sociopath, I have
    no desire *at all* to get him into trouble at work.  And I have
    no desire to involve my own Personnel and manager either.
    
    It seems to me that the simplest thing to do is to just set the
    note hidden as soon as one of the mods sees it.  I realize that
    there could be a lot of grey area as to what should be set hidden
    and what shouldn't -- our moderators are intelligent and caring
    people who would sooner leave it open than risk setting a note
    hidden unfairly (so I don't believe there is much chance that
    many notes would suffer this fate.)
    
    The sociopathic notes we have seen in this file have been *black*and*white*
    -- no discussion whatsoever, just an unadulterated string of insults
    against women and this file.  Notes like those should simply be
    set hidden with an explanation of why (and the mods should then
    contact the author.)  There's no real point in allowing the notes
    to sit there and fester for up to 2 days.
    
    The mentality involved in the insulting basenotes we've seen entered
    into this conference is *exactly* the same as the mentality at work
    when we see chumps on the street who heckle and insult women that
    pass by.  Our culture has taught us (and is *STILL* teaching us)
    to just allow these people their little fun and ignore them.
    
    It stands to reason that a file involving "Topics of Interest to
    Women would attract that sort of negative attention from the types
    of persons who enjoy doing that sort of thing.
    
    It's not really that big of a deal.  Lord knows, women have grown
    used to being insulted and leered at on the street, so I guess we
    can get used to seeing it here, too.
    
    Like a bad boil, those things are uncomfortable and annoying, but
    we manage to live through them til they go away.  What else can
    we do?
    
    							Suzanne...
    
    
    
    
    

    I assume that was a joke?
    
    At various times in various notes files devoted to wish lists for the
    notes product the suggestion has been made that as well as a membership
    list it would be useful to have a "non-membership" list of banned noters.
    
    It was generally considered that no customer had asked for the feature
    and that it was counter to DEC culture to do it.
    
    The recent "Policy & Procedure" on non-work notes conferences effectively
    bans closed conferences that are not work-related. A non-membership
    list is exactly the same as a closed conference, so probably wouldn't
    be allowed.
    
    /. Ian .\

        It's a digression, but I'd like to correct a misaprehension in
        272.21. There is *nothing* in the Policies and Procedures manual
        that bans "non-work" conferences with restricted memberships.
        What there is is a cover memo by Mike Carter in which he
        expressed his opinion that such conferences were unacceptable.
        At the time he wrote the note Mr. Carter was a manager in our
        Security department. He has since left the company. 
        
        His opinion was and is shared by some number of people in the
        corporation, including some in policy making positions, however
        that does not make the opinion corporate policy, although it may
        make it policy in some parts of the company. It is also thought
        to be a corporate policy by some number of managers who Ian
        mistook the cover letter for the policy or who acquired the
        impression second hand. It thus has become a de facto under
        these managers regardless of whether they would have established
        such a policy on their own.
        
        Beyond not being policy, the ban on restricted membership
        employee activity conferences can readily be in direct conflict
        with real established policy, such as the "Valuing Differences"
        policy. Some conferences that are specifically in line with
        "Valuing difference", such as Alcoholics Anonymous and the Gay
        Digital Employees conferences have legitimate needs for
        restricting access to known individuals in order to help revent
        harassment. High-level policy-setting managers have recognized
        this need and allowed that Valuing Differences out-weighs the
        issues that gave rise to Mr. Carter's idea.
        
        JimB.