I had to look it up too. Mike, maybe look up a definition. It might be the meaning is worse than you realised.
I don’t think so Mike. But that’s because, as an idea, that comes across as a line of thinking of someone who’s mind is stuck in 1984.
I don’t think so Mike. But that’s because, as an idea, that comes across as a line of thinking of someone who’s mind is stuck in 1984.[/quote]
Remind me how this is useful again?
Sorry, I didn’t mean it in that sense at all. So, yeah, I used that term inappropriately. What I meant, and there probably isn’t a term for this, is the situation of voicing a concern on behalf of a non-present party and then that bit where the community ends up getting hooked into the discussion (this is what I meant by the trolling aspect - it’s the bit where we get hooked on the concept, like fish on a line). There’s no particular way to validate the concern (because the concerned-for-party is not present in the discussion), so the whole thing becomes an abstract discussion which is difficult to resolve.
And out of our abstraction we now have something that amounts to, IMO, an Orwellian action, which I believe is unnecessary for reasons I have already indicated.
In 1984, the whole point was to conceal the true facts so future examiners could not establish what they were. This is the entire purpose of your edits. You, me, and Winston Smith will still know what the original facts were, but it’s the newcomers that will be affected to the obfuscation, as intended. Sure, it only barely registers on the Orwellian scale, but that’s not the point.
I don’t think this is a matter of dogma, Ryan has indicated that they went for the quick option. I get it, dealing with Adam has been, and continues to be, a monumental waste of Society time. I’ve personally spent hour upon hour dealing with his fallout as this post shows. Let us hope this is the end of it.
Looking at how I expect to be spending my weekend, all I have for that is bitter laughter.
I don’t think so Mike. But that’s because, as an idea, that comes across as a line of thinking of someone who’s mind is stuck in 1984.[/quote]
Remind me how this is useful again?[/quote]
It was an answer to Mikes question, and answer which he seemed satisfied with so thats all that really matters to the concerned parties. Also I appreciate that Mike clarified he meant something more along the lines of “trawling”. It was a break down in communication that could have flared tempers.
Anyway, back on to relevant business.
If newcomers need to know about Adam, I’m sure they can simply ask. Not that I’m sure why they would, being that he is no longer involved in the community. I don’t see this as a reason to not remove his name from google searches by removing his name from online documents. Paper documents, that idiotsavant has kept a record of, should suffice, which is a testament to good management.
I’m stoked the committee saw the reasoning behind this change, its fairly encouraging and awesome to see that they are willing to listen to all members of this society.
We don’t do paper anymore. All our records are electronic, with Diatribe as the central repository for society business. This change has meant taking a backup, and making it permanently accessible to future committees.
We don’t do paper anymore. All our records are electronic, with Diatribe as the central repository for society business. This change has meant taking a backup, and making it permanently accessible to future committees.[/quote]
Oh fantastic, even better. Its as simple as sharing the document with someone.
Oh fantastic, even better. Its as simple as sharing the document with someone.[/quote]
Precisely. Though to ensure future access, its link-shared with the link posted in the national committee forum instead.
Another option would be to upload the file as an attachment, which I should probably do for redundancy.
I’ve edited posts where appropriate. I believe all altered posts were archived by Idiot, apart from a number where I just changed the title. I’ve also edited posts in this topic.
Unfortunately I couldn’t use the word censoring tool that Ants suggested as it’s global and we need to maintain backstage records, so the process was manual.
Thanks Ryan! Your ongoing patience and constant professionalism in dealing with Adam for many years is truly outstanding.
[quote=“Ryan Paddy”]I’ve edited posts where appropriate. I believe all altered posts were archived by Idiot, apart from a number where I just changed the title. I’ve also edited posts in this topic.
Unfortunately I couldn’t use the word censoring tool that Ants suggested as it’s global and we need to maintain backstage records, so the process was manual.[/quote]
Seconding Derek. Thanks a lot, its an awesome thing you did, and Dereks right in saying that your professionalism in this matter was/is fantastic.
[quote=“Helikaon”][quote=“Ryan Paddy”]I’ve edited posts where appropriate. I believe all altered posts were archived by Idiot, apart from a number where I just changed the title. I’ve also edited posts in this topic.
Unfortunately I couldn’t use the word censoring tool that Ants suggested as it’s global and we need to maintain backstage records, so the process was manual.[/quote]
Seconding Derek. Thanks a lot, its an awesome thing you did, and Dereks right in saying that your professionalism in this matter was/is fantastic.[/quote]People don’t see it, but I’d also back I/S for this as well - he’s the one who actually has to do most of the email communication that occurs.