|
1141. Angel-Five - 2/27/2000 9:03:59 AM I like Angel-5. It's grown on me a lot. Call that what you will.
Unlike Jay, I don't see the point of unilateral transparency, but I'm willing to agree to it on condition.
I will post real data without hesitation provided that I can get one simple bit of agreement from Wabbit: that only the people who post here under their real names, and can verify that to me or to the satisfaction of the administration, are allowed to use or refer to that data. For everyone else, use of that data constitutes an infringement of my privacy, their posts are to be deleted and they are subject to ID suspension. Does that sound reasonable? 1142. CalGal - 2/27/2000 9:44:37 AM Seguine,
It appears that we were discussing two different forms of transparency. In this discussion, "transparency" refers to the practice of using real names and having no privacy rules. You apparently have been using it to refer to transparency of operations. If you identified this switch, I missed it.
I agree that Dusty has been clearly in favor of transparency of operations. When I said he had not come down clearly in favor of transparency, I was referring to the discussion on privacy. I am aware that you are not in favor of that sort of transparency, and have even referred to it on more than one occasion here.
And yes, I realize you support Irv's RoE. I have never questioned that. What surprised me--and still does--is that we had a long debate on your push for less use of personal (but not private) information, and then Irv's reposting of the same rules (with concise wording) gets your vote and you drop all mention of the personal information requirement.
Jay,
I understood that to be your position. 1143. Seguine - 2/27/2000 9:56:13 AM Hey, A-5, I rather like that suggestion.
What do you think, Jay? It privileges those participants willing to use their real names by offering them extra protection against misuse of personal data, thereby requiring a degree of civility as the price of ID transparency. Or vice-versa: ID transparency becomes currency for an enforced degree of civility regarding all info.
One would have to be able to trust that Mote management would be vigilant about violations, but still... I might consider going back to using my real name (which I concede is already known) just to see whether such a policy might work.
What do others think? 1144. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/27/2000 10:08:07 AM Dusty:
I posted a legitimate concern and a proposed improvement. Why the smart-ass reply?
I responded to your concern. I tried to add a little humor to a dry and somewhat tense debate. My intention was only to lighten things up. I'm not used to being called a smart ass. Do you really think it fits? 1145. CalGal - 2/27/2000 10:14:48 AM God almighty. You all must think Wabbit has unlimited time.
I'll leave it to someone else to rip that idea to shreds. 1146. arkymalarky - 2/27/2000 10:17:49 AM Message # 1143
If it were not a volunteer site it might be more feasible, but speaking for myself as co-moderator of one of the busiest threads here and as one who does not log on from work any more due to an increased workload, and who also has less time at home, I don't see how it would be workable, and I wouldn't want to continue hosting a thread, at least not one as busy and rowdy as Politics. The ones to ask, though, would be Wabbit and Alistair. 1147. Indiana Jones - 2/27/2000 10:20:56 AM If anyone "outs" themselves, that's his/her problem. You have something you don't want brought up, keep it a secret. I don't want to know anything you're going to cry to the sysop about later. Currently, we have very little problem with the transparency issue, and all proposed changes complicate it.
Look: there's a cost that comes with keeping personal info confidential. More than one Motier has contacted me via email, and started up off-board conversations. They share stuff with me, and unfortunately, I can't share much with them. I've seen too many times the consequences of such trust. And if you share real-life info with people and it comes back to bite you, you never really knew who did it, meaning you may suspect a lot of people wrongly.
Second, people treat you differently because of the "reserve." What does anyone know about a moniker? OTOH there's something reassuring when you know the person is real and has put his cards on the table.
So as a pseud, I have to put up with a lot of distrust and even sometimes lies--witness the Mote Cafe at TT--because without saying who I am, it's pretty difficult to prove who I am not. That's okay, though, because to be able to post while protecting my real life, that's the price I'm willing to pay.
On another subject, silence does not always equal assent. Silence sometimes equals fatigue. It's fairly obvious that a lot of blather occurs on this thread to accomplish very little change. When it actually appears as though something I care about is likely to be affected, I'll speak up.
Change requires a stronger advocacy than one or two complainers. 1148. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/27/2000 10:22:14 AM It's a nice idea in principle, but would be a nightmare to implement. It would also require the support and active participation of all thread hosts, which in itself is unlikely. 1149. CalGal - 2/27/2000 10:22:30 AM Okay, here's what I did with Irv's draft. I copied it all verbatim, with one exception--I made the wording more consistent and added who and what could do what. I also underscored the terms--we can make them hyperlinks and spell out "private information", "threats", and "abuse" in the FAQ. Alternately, we can define them all in greater detail in the RoE--but right now, Irv had one spelled out (private information) and not the other two. I think we should be consistent on that. However, if enough people want the asterisk in Irv's original draft, I'm not going to fuss. I just thought I'd show what I mean.
Irv, if I took any liberties that changed your meaning, rather than just standardize the text, squawk. That wasn't my intent. Also, if you think it really was preferable the other way, I can live with it. I just wanted the structure of the four rules in order, etc.
Coming up... 1150. CalGal - 2/27/2000 10:25:06 AM Rules of Engagement:
The Mote is a not-for-profit discussion forum hosted and run by member volunteers. Membership is free. [one comment--is this appropriate for the RoE? I think it should be in the FAQ, but I left it here since it was in Irv's draft]
Strenuous argument is acceptable in this forum. However, certain important rules govern the exchange of information:
1. Don't reveal someone else's private information online.
2. Don't make threats.
3. Don't make posts that are needlessly abusive.
4. Don't use The Mote for advertising, solicitations or spam.
For violations of Rules 1 and 2, the offending posts will be deleted by the Thread Host or the Moderator. If the violation is deemed serious and intentional, the violator is subject to suspension or banning by the Moderator.
For violations of Rules 3 and 4, the offending posts are subject to possible deletion or relocation by the Thread Host or the Moderator. In serious cases, the violator is subject to suspension or banning by the Moderator.
The decision of the Thread Hosts and Moderator are final.
The final judge of the behavior of any participant, or of a thread host's decisions and behavior, is the Moderator.
The Mote does not endorse or stand behind the truthfulness or reliability of any information posted by users and is not responsible in any manner for content, which remains the sole responsibility of the user.
By participating in The Mote, you agree to abide by the Rules of Engagement. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved.1151. Seguine - 2/27/2000 10:32:13 AM "In this discussion, "transparency" refers to the practice of using real names and having no privacy rules."
Your attempt at unilateral definition of terms is hilarious. I brought up the subject of operations transparency some 200 posts ago.
"What surprised me--and still does--is that we had a long debate on your push for less use of personal (but not private) information, and then Irv's reposting of the same rules (with concise wording) gets your vote and you drop all mention of the personal information requirement."
Why in heaven's name should this have "surprised" you? Does it surprise you when a political candidate ends his own campaign to endorse an opponent whose views are close enough to his own to advance at least some of the goals he considers worthy? Irv's a far better politician than I. Consider me a mere Alan Keyes: I'm here to keep the debate interesting and inclusive.
JayAckroyd, of course, is the AntiPerot, but only because Perot is secretive. 1152. Seguine - 2/27/2000 10:47:38 AM Irv's Version:
The Mote is a not-for-profit discussion forum hosted and run by member volunteers. Membership is free.
Strenuous argument is acceptable in this forum. However, certain important rules govern the exchange of information:
1. Don't reveal someone else's private information online*.
2. Don't make threats.
For violations of Rules 1 and 2, the offending posts will be deleted, and violators will be subject to suspension or banning by the Moderator, if the violation is deemed serious and intentional. The decision of the Moderator is final.
3. Don't make posts that are needlessly abusive.
4. Do not use The Mote for advertising, solicitations or spam.
Posts violating Rules 3 and 4 are subject to possible deletion by the Thread Host (or possible relocation of posts to the Inferno, in the case of Rule 3). In serious cases, the Moderator may suspend or ban the ID of the violator. The decisions of the Thread Hosts and Moderator are final.
The final judge of the behavior of any participant, or of a thread host's decisions and behavior, is the Moderator.
The Mote does not endorse or stand behind the truthfulness or reliability of any information posted by users and is not responsible in any manner for content, which remains the sole responsibility of the user.
By participating in The Mote, you agree to abide by the Rules of Engagement. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved.
*Private Information is defined as any information linked to an individual’s real-life identity which has never been posted in the Mote by an individual (or by another participant with the individual’s knowledge and express consent).
1153. Seguine - 2/27/2000 10:48:22 AM toys 1154. Seguine - 2/27/2000 10:54:22 AM [In the recap above, disregard the boldface from "The Mote does not endorse ..." onward]
CalGal, you have edited out a measure of the specificity in Irv's three 'ultimate responsibilty' clauses by deleting the first, and introduced a redundancy by placing it directly after the second.
1155. Seguine - 2/27/2000 10:55:16 AM Keerist. Enough of the bold already. 1156. Seguine - 2/27/2000 10:55:55 AM
1157. Seguine - 2/27/2000 10:56:30 AM (Well, I tried.) 1158. Angel-Five - 2/27/2000 10:58:47 AM Irv's version is clearer as to function. 1159. Angel-Five - 2/27/2000 11:03:25 AM Hey, I've got an idea. Why don't I rewrite Irv's revision and change another twenty words and rearrange some of the order meaninglessly, and then we can debate my revision? I mean, it won't make any difference, but at least I'll have written them, right? 1160. Angel-Five - 2/27/2000 11:34:36 AM I think this is going to get nasty if it keeps up, so I'm just going to say this and then hopefully we can move on and put Irv's revision up on the big board and be done with this for a little while. Most of the Motiers who have objected to the old RoE or stated a preference for the new RoE have mentioned tone. They also have mentioned clarity and specificity. Yet, CalGal, though you've already been corrected on it once, you insist on saying it's a matter of tone and then go on your merry way rewriting. You really need to realize that clarity and specificity are important to many of the people who have, which is why the specificity relating to the Moderator -- not constraint, but specificity -- is a valuable part of Irv's revision of your old RoE. I see no additional clarity in your re-revision and I see indeed a loss of specificity as to function. Given that otherwise every single thing in your re-revision is a direct copy of Irving's draft, I'm totally at a loss as to what, if any, legitimate point you may have in 'rewriting' Irving's draft. Certainly no one else has called for a revision of Irv's draft which muddles up the agency of post moving and deletion because they're worried it's all a little too specific when Irv explicitly links thread hosts and moderators to deletion.
|
