|
97. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:45:12 PM 91
If it's done through email and not public posting, then nobody will know, will they? And it seems to me that the victim's request rule fits in with your paradigm of only the victim knows whether they've been infringed upon.
Still don't know what good all this does if we can't ban people anyway. 98. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 10:46:03 PM Jay, re: #88.
Of course - that's a major reason why we choose pseuodynms! I like being virtual, it's a chance to let down my hair. (and no, Ace, I'm not a transvestite. ;) 99. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 10:47:12 PM
Adam:
Yes. We cannot PREVENT anyone from revealing anyone's personal information on some chat-board we never heard of.
But we can PUNISH people who we CATCH doing it.
Of course we can't stop people from posting personal information if we never find out about it! 100. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:47:14 PM Again the reason you want the victim's request is that only the victim knows for sure if he or she was victimized. You can say whatever you want about niner, and he'll know it's a joke. Someone who despises him won't get the same leeway. 101. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 10:49:57 PM
Jay:
First, I don't think I've ever suggested that PRIVATE GOSSIP should be outlawed. If it remains PRIVATE, no one can do anything about it, right? When it becomes PUBLIC, we can, and should do something about it.
Obviously, I'd like it if no one spread information about me PRIVATELY. But I can't police that, can I? If you want some rule about it, fine, but I don't know how the hell you could ever enforce it.
Second: If it does "Nothing" to ban somebody, then I don't see your reluctance to do it.
Either it does something and it should be done.
Or it does "nothing" and there's no real reason NOT to do it, is there?
102. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:51:38 PM That's right. I obviously think it does something. 103. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 10:52:52 PM Jay,
I'd rather err on the side of aggressiveness. If the 'victim' wants clemency for the bannee, they can request it. The victim may not be online that week --- if we wait for their complaint, then it's way too late.
Ace, We can't control ID's and other things at other sites. Asking Mote people to monitor other sites or even to try and figure out who's doing what under which ID at other sites is beyond the pale. Let's just worry about our own backyard. 104. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:53:48 PM So, Ace, do you agree with:
The language you posted that I've reposted twice
A nanny account that is monitored by judges, whose ruling is final
Ban requests from the victim go to that account by email and can only come from the victim
Public bystander requests for banning are subject to sanctions
105. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 10:54:36 PM Acer, again - with the caveat that if it's linked or referenced here, that's as good as doing it here, no matter who revealed it elsewhere. 106. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 10:55:00 PM
Again the reason you want the victim's request is that only the victim knows for sure if he or she was victimized.
Jay:
Yes, yes, I agree-- in the case of things like "Niner gets hard-ons for Britney Spears." of course you won't know if that's a violation if Niner doesn't tell you. He MUST tell you for you to act.
I am ONLY suggesting automatic action-- without request-- in the case of DE FACTO bannable revelations, i.e., those revelations that no one has to tell you are revelations-- Name. Address. Family Members.
The aggrieved party should be able to ask for clemency, or can even CLEAR the offender by just saying (even lying, if they want) that they gave the outer permission to make that revelation. ANd then, fine. Vaya con Dios.
But if, say, CalGal's name is outed, and we ask her, "Cal, did you give this person permission to out your name?" and she says "No," then why do we really need Cal's request for action?
I am flexible on the point. An "unwilling witness" can always LIE to get the criminal off, by just saying "Oh, sure, I told her to do that."
But there are meek types out there. If, say, a stark raving psychopath outs CalGal, and she's too nice or too afraid to ask for his banning, then congratulations, no action is taken, and we can now wait for the psychopath to out his NEXT victim. 107. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:55:07 PM Adam,
You delete an offending message, and wait for the request. Although I agree that in egregious cases--you have a point. I guess I don't expect any egregious cases. 108. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 10:55:57 PM Jay,
If you give the hosts power to delete the posts and let the actual banning wait for the victim's request, that's not a bad compromise. 109. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:56:25 PM Yeah, I'm all right with that. Suspended until clemency is issued in egregrious cases. 110. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:57:20 PM The post gets deleted iac. That's not in dispute--except when people are trying to be tricky, and the host doesn't notice. 111. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:58:02 PM I'm outta here. 112. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 10:58:31 PM Jay,
did we just compromise right past each other? If so - then I retract my compromise! 113. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 10:58:51 PM adios. 114. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 11:04:34 PM
So, Ace, do you agree with:
The language you posted that I've reposted twice -- Looked for it, have no idea what you're talking about. I think you were quoting me, but I forget.
A nanny account that is monitored by judges, whose ruling is final --
I guess. We haven't really debated this, though. You're asking me to agree to something I haven't even CONSIDERED. I agree that we always need multiple cops available to patrol the beat, so we can ALWAYS get extreme violations removed quickly, but we haven't even discussed that other stuff, and I'd rather reserve judgement until we do.
Ban requests from the victim go to that account by email and can only come from the victim -- For De Facto violations (Name, Address, Family Members), I don't see why victim request should be necessary. If the victim wants to beg for mercy for the outer, fine, grant some mercy. I am sort of flexible here, but if CalGal goes away for a two month vacation, can someone out her name during the vacation? Why?
What if I quit the Mote tomorrow (or rather, simply don't post here anymore)? Can people begin posting my personal information, and no one will even have the common sense and common decency to do something about it, even in clear cases of violations?
Am I forever obliged to Monitor this site just to make sure no one's outing me? Is this like the Mafia or CIA-- in for a second, in for a lifetime?
Public bystander requests for banning are subject to sanctions
Huh? What does this mean? I don't get this.
115. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 11:10:39 PM
Adam:
There shouldn't need to be any "linkage" to this site for a banning.
People do not need to spread other people's personal information all over the Internet. It's unnecessary. It's malicious. It's probably illegal.
We can't STOP it. But we sure the fuck can ban someone from this site if we catch them, can't we?
And why wouldn't we? Who wants someone like that as part of their community?
Wouldn't you feel nervous talking to me if you knew I was exposing confidential details about you in other places?
Why the fuck would you even want me here?
I don't get it. You're postulating a PSYCHOPATH, and then saying, "Oh, let's just worry about our own backyard; if a psycho wants to out personal information about us all over the internet, let's let him, and certainly not ban him from the site."
Huh?
Why do you want to keep him? 116. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 11:19:28 PM We can't STOP it. But we sure the fuck can ban someone from this site if we catch them, can't we?
And if some malicions Motie goes to another site, logs in as Ace Of Spades, and outs a few people, you want yourself to be banned? Do you want to have to prove that it really wasn't you? How would you do it?
The links I'm refering to are links FROM here to an outing, as you probably gathered. Just making sure. Only if something is actually posted in the Mote can we be reasonably sure who did it, and that's when we nail 'em.
|
