The Observation Deck

To be fair, the Observation Deck is not entirely transparent in this regard. I recently participated in a thread that was removed. I had three or four posts within that thread.

I know the Observer reserves the right to "delete any content posted through it at any time and for any reason," but the content of the deleted thread--in my opinion--was no more incendiary than many, many others that have appeared and continue to appear in this forum.

Jill Jusko wrote:To be fair, the Observation Deck is not entirely transparent in this regard. I recently participated in a thread that was removed. I had three or four posts within that thread.

I know the Observer reserves the right to "delete any content posted through it at any time and for any reason," but the content of the deleted thread--in my opinion--was no more incendiary than many, many others that have appeared and continue to appear in this forum.

Jill,

What thread do you speak of?

I don't remember what the thread title was anymore, but it was deleted Sept. 29. Mr. O'Bryan explained in a PM to me that the administrators had made a determination to remove it.

Jill Jusko wrote:I don't remember what the thread title was anymore, but it was deleted Sept. 29. Mr. O'Bryan explained in a PM to me that the administrators had made a determination to remove it.

Jill

In all honesty in the history of the Deck 5 posts have been removed, another 20 have been
archived and taken off the Deck. EVERY POST with the exception of those are either here
or at: http://lakewoodobserver.com/deck/

This exists because someone deleted posts by accident and decided it would be easier
to not fix the problem. This URL has been posted and is public.

The post you speak of where I spoke about a public official and was asked to "out them"
as I have no interest in outing any of my sources, I removed it, as you had pointed out
it was unfair to all political people and civic leaders.

So tell me, should I bring it back and be unfair to all civic leaders, or keep it in the
achieved section?

Hard to do all three.

We do not control information, nor conversations.


.

Mr. O'Bryan,

You told me that the "administrators" had determined that the thread had to be moved, not that you had determined that the thread had to be moved. In fact, you gave the impression that you disagreed with the decision.

You never mentioned where it had been moved to.

Whether you bring back the thread or not is clearly your decision, just as you made the decision to move it. Do you generally move threads that people believe are unfair?

In this instance, you absolutely did control information and conversation. And that is my only point. You point out this lack of transparency in others; I think it fair to point out it happens here as well, even if only infrequently.

Jill Jusko wrote:Mr. O'Bryan,

You told me that the "administrators" had determined that the thread had to be moved, not that you had determined that the thread had to be moved. In fact, you gave the impression that you disagreed with the decision.

You never mentioned where it had been moved to.

Whether you bring back the thread or not is clearly your decision, just as you made the decision to move it. Do you generally move threads that people believe are unfair?

In this instance, you absolutely did control information and conversation.

Jill

I am sorry a majority of the board had decided it should be archived. And it would be
they who would also move it back.

For the record Jim DeVito has the most rapid response to the deck. As he is the admin
he has been given most of the power to do what is right.

Your complaint, actually presented a unique situation, as I had improperly painted with
a large brush and as you had said in PMs I should clarify or fix it. Again my sources
should not be outed by me. So infact you controlled this more than I. Had you said
nothing, it would have remained. So now I ask you, do you want it reposted as unfair
as you thought it was, or do we leave it in archive?

I will put the transparency and openness of this project next to any other private business
in this city, and most of those receiving public funding. As I mentioned at the time
want to know more, join the board I know Mel is looking for good people.

To underline how different we do not even use the "admin" name. Everyone owns their actions
and posts.

.

Mr. O'Bryan,

Interesting that you have made me the reason that the post was removed.

Jill Jusko wrote:Mr. O'Bryan,

Interesting that you have made me the reason that the post was removed.

Ms Jusko

Not making you the reason. But you were the one that got the ball rolling. I suppose in
the end, it was me unwilling to out the public official. So let's call it my fault if that
makes the action easier.

Never looking to shift the blame, just thought it would sound odd, "I protested my own
post and asked for a decision."

I maintain, no one controls the discussion less than here. That would be less than 1
post a year.Which includes the 3 posts from Joe Milan that were deleted by mistake.
Of course Joe was asked to repost, but could not remember what they said 4 hours
after posting.


.

JOB,
Are you saying that the unnamed elected official you accused of talking with one of the local TV news stations, was also your source? They outed themselves to you?

Mike Davis wrote:JOB,
Are you saying that the unnamed elected official you accused of talking with one of the local TV news stations, was also your source? They outed themselves to you?

This make some of my posts seem lucid.


.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:This exists because someone deleted posts by accident and decided it would be easier to not fix the problem.

Nice.

JOB
The question of being lucid is on you. The question Jill was asking you in the thread you deleted was - Who was the unnamed elected official speaking with the news station. You now respond that you did not want to out your source. But, that was not what she was asking you in the deleted thread. Hope this helps to clarify.

Mike Davis wrote:JOB
The question of being lucid is on you. The question Jill was asking you in the thread you deleted was - Who was the unnamed elected official speaking with the news station. You now respond that you did not want to out your source. But, that was not what she was asking you in the deleted thread. Hope this helps to clarify.

Mike

Not really, the discussing centered around the term "civic leaders." It had nothing to do
with TV stations or officials. The discussion on the deck and behind the scenes in PMs
was if that was fair to "civic leaders" as many civic leaders are very good people without
the hidden agendas, I had to admit it was not fair. Two of the board members reading
the thread also felt the comment was unfair.

While the thread is not in Lakewood Discussion it still exists online and can be found
with a simple search. So in fact it was not deleted merely moved out of the spotlight.

What thread are you speaking of?

.

The thread where you were admonishing the masses to "own their words" and then your words disappeared without explanation to the deck and its participants.

Mike Davis wrote:The thread where you were admonishing the masses to "own their words" and then your words disappeared without explanation to the deck and its participants.

Mike

I do not mean to sound like a forgetful old man. But I cannot remember what thread
you are speaking of. Certainly not of recent memory, and certainly not my style to
remove. After making the mistakes with Joe Milan's 3 posts about the RTA, where I had
actually edited his posts by mistake, having the power of an admin, I asked to be
stripped of admin powers. While I hate to out sources and really I have very little
trouble owning my own words. I often speak about the value of standing behind words
and comments, and comments made by people unwilling to stand behind them with
their own name, have very little value to me, and I would hope others. I would also
hope that everyone reads, and then applies it to themselves and their life and
experiences.


As I put on every message I leave...
"If anything I've said seems useful to you, I'm glad.
If not, don't worry. Just forget about it."
His Holiness The Dalai Lama

I also have very little trouble talking about my own short comings as a human, nor
how the Observer project could be run better for everyone.

.