|
1414. Ms. No - 7/5/2001 7:11:21 AM RosettaStone has once again been suspended for two weeks for brining up this tireless subject outside the Policy thread against express instructions not to do so.
He brings it up not in an effort to warn people but in an effort to create discord and as such he will be suspended every time he does it. If upon his return he cannot or will not behave in a manner that is less destructive to this forum he will be banned permanently. 1415. don s. - 7/5/2001 7:12:26 AM And because I bring this up here, warning people, I'm threaten [sic] with being banned.
Well, you're a warning about something, that's for sure. 1416. don s. - 7/5/2001 7:12:42 AM Cousins marrying, maybe? 1417. RosettaStone - 7/5/2001 11:59:28 AM So talking about TT in the Tabled Talk thread is off topic?
1418. mgleason - 7/17/2001 10:54:21 PM 2320. Indiana Jones - 7/18/01 2:36:22 PM
Irv: I don't intend to discuss this further here, there, or anywhere--other than through private email. If there is something else you want me to do, you can post it wherever you like or send me your request.
mgleason:
Communication via the moderators is just as much a 'Mote channel' as posting in the forum itself.
This is none of the Mote's affair. CalGal made it clear beforehand that I was not to speak for the Mote and that my views did not represent those of the Mote. Her pronouncement should be sufficient, given all that has occurred, to make it clear without anyone else weighing in, what the Mote's position is.
You and Irv have made your views known publicly. IMO that is sufficient to clear up any misunderstanding. Be that as it may, if you wish me to correct msgreer personally of any misunderstanding you think I have conveyed to her about your respective positions, I will certainly do so.
You made it 'the Mote's business' Indiana, when, in the text of your e-mail, you listed Irv and myself as being among those who had posted support for msgreer in the Mote. That is an untruth. CalGal's opinions don't enter into this one way or the other; you purported to speak for us as members of the Mote.
We attempted to handle this through a moderator so as to spare the feelings of everyone involved; your post in Notices and Queries signalled your unwillingness to proceed in that fashion, which would have been much the simplest solution. I imagine that there is now no need for you to write to msgreer to rectify this situation, as someone is bound to notify her, if she does not read of it herself.
1419. Indiana Jones - 7/17/2001 11:11:48 PM mgleason: I note your opinion but do not agree with it. 1420. mgleason - 7/17/2001 11:15:41 PM It is not an opinion, but a true recounting of the events that transpired. 1421. Indiana Jones - 7/17/2001 11:17:47 PM I note your opinion that this is a matter for the Mote Policies thread, but do not agree with that contention. 1422. mgleason - 7/17/2001 11:42:26 PM As I noted earlier, we attempted to handle this through the moderators in lieu of discussing the matter in this or any other thread, but that was apparently unacceptable to you.
Here is the applicable part of your original post:
2183. Indiana Jones - 7/11/01 6:36:29 PM
In accordance with 2182 above, I propose to send msgreer an email inviting her to reconsider her (apparent) decision of leaving the Mote and abandoning her post in the Health Thread.
I intend to affix to that post the "signatures" of all signees of the Age of Urquhart, as well as her two co-hosts, Jenerator, my own, and anyone else who wishes to email me (indianajones@resourceful.com) their desire to be included, or just posts it here. (If you think I'm going to include your name and don't want it included, do either as well.)
It never occurred to me that you would be including me in your e-mail, since I did not meet the criteria you listed. The fact that you purported to speak for a subset of the Mote's membership makes it a Mote matter. What makes it a serious one is that you did so, in my case, at least, without any sort of consent, stated or implied. 1423. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/18/2001 12:03:05 AM Indy:
Wrt your post in Notices... I don't know of any specific actions you could take, but I'd like to know how I ended up on that list, too... a list you decribed as affixing our "signatures" in the post mgleason quotes above. I saw the post above, and, though I didn't agree with the effort, I also didn't feel like e-mailing you to tell you to leave me out, and I didn't want to post, to avoid making this a major issue. That's why I was surprised to find that my name was on the list, but most of the AoU signees were not. 1424. Indiana Jones - 7/18/2001 12:05:38 AM Maria: It is my prerogative to decline to discuss my personal correspondence--real or purported--with Mote moderators unless it is sent by me to them. Regardless of whether you think it is an issue for their jurisdiction, I don't.
Again I will point out that they have said that they don't intend to discuss here their email regarding policy or other Mote issues, and unlike me, they are responsible for speaking for the Mote. Hence, I cannot fathom why you or anyone else would think this matter involving email exchanges between non-moderators should be handled differently.
(Because so many people here see hidden motives in every action, I should point out that my reference to moderator policy above expresses no desire that they change it, but rather is to show that my attitude is in no way unreasonable or unique.) 1425. mgleason - 7/18/2001 12:19:24 AM Indiana,
It is not, however, your prerogative to take it upon yourself to speak for me as a member of this forum. I don't know whether this is an explicit policy violation or not, but it certainly comes close. It is for that reason, among others, that I attempted to have this issue mediated by a moderator, because it goes beyond 'personal correspondence.'
You are conflating several things when you speak of the moderators having 'said that they don't intend to discuss here their email regarding policy or other Mote issues.' I believe that they have said that they are under no obligation to do so. As an unwitting party to your action, it was my prerogative to make it public when you declined to accede to the request for rectification as proposed by one of the moderators. 1426. Indiana Jones - 7/18/2001 12:43:32 AM Maria: You are certainly free to state whatever you wish publicly. I am not compelled to do likewise. 1427. mgleason - 7/18/2001 12:54:44 AM When you involve me in your actions, and refuse to resolve the matter discreetly, I am not out of line in asking for an explanation, which you have yet to provide. 1428. Indiana Jones - 7/18/2001 1:01:53 AM Maria: Unfortunately by its nature, discretion is seldom recognized except in its absence. 1429. Ms. No - 7/18/2001 1:07:44 AM Indy,
You obviously felt compelled to state publicly that you wished to handle this matter privately. A course of action which you apparently disdained since you could have at any time after being informed of the complaints emailed Irv or Maria privately.
As you have pointed out you are not a Moderator and, so, cannot speak for the Mote and yet you took it upon yourself to do so. In fact, you didn't just take it upon yourself to speak for members of the Mote but you LIED about some of their positions.
At the very least you owe both Maria and Irving an apology. You owe it publicly since it is by your actions alone that the matter has become public. What you do not need to do is waste any more time in supercilious side-stepping. 1430. CalGal - 7/18/2001 3:01:22 AM Suppose this hadn't been about a moderated incident. Suppose instead that Indy had sent a letter to me saying "CalGal, you are ruining the forum. Signed:" and includes a list of people. It's not an issue involving the moderators. Should he be allowed to choose any names he wants, without regard for whether or not they actually agree?
Suppose Indy sends a note to MsGreer that purports to be from MGleason directly--he creates a web email address and sends it to her.
While I suspect he thinks the second is wrong, I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two.
If Indy had written, "I think what happened sucks and Irv does too" in a note to MsG, and MsG forwarded it to Irv and Irv got annoyed and sent it on to MsNo, would that be the same thing? No, there is something about it being a "signatory" that implies permission and consent, as opposed to gossip. MsG might get the wrong idea, Irv might be annoyed, but it wouldn't be the same thing.
Indy thinks it should be handled privately. Where is the line drawn? Should he, or anyone, be allowed to write emails and sign other people's names to them?
Is this a Mote issue? To the extent that it is, I disagree that it has anything to do with the specifics of the MsG "incident". Either it's acceptable to use other people's names without their permission or it's not. And if it isn't acceptable, is it the Mote's business, from a policy perspective?
If it is, it is an issue of either privacy or abuse. I'm not sure I have built a case in my own mind for it being a Mote concern, but it feels like it is. 1431. arkymalarky - 7/18/2001 3:46:43 AM The sentence with the names following basically says the people listed have expressed support of Msgreer and would like her to return to the Mote and to hosting.
The list is followed by Indy's email to MsGreer. I don't know that it's a violation of anything in the ROE but it's problematic that an id can be attached to a sentiment that hasn't been expressed by the individual.
I would like to see MsGreer active. I would like to see a lot of the people who have come and gone since the Fray died be active here, whether I personally cared for them or not. This place will not survive if too many of the once committed members lose interest. We're not gaining enough new posters to make up the difference. That's the main reason I didn't voice an objection to my name on the list. But the fact remains that I didn't publicly express what my name is attached to, and even if I did, I still think people should be asked and grant permission before their names are attached to anything.
1432. PelleNilsson - 7/18/2001 4:00:58 AM OK, so Indy committed a blunder. People do sometimes. Let's close this chapter and move on. 1433. Ms. No - 7/18/2001 4:01:55 AM While I suspect he thinks the second is wrong, I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two.
Nor do I. Certainly the first case is quite clearly a violation of privacy as it involves forging an email. The second, however, also involves a sort of forgery by claiming "signatores".
Indy thinks it should be handled privately.
So he has claimed quite publicly at least three times. He could have contacted Maria and Irv and dealt with the matter privately as they had been willing to do until he made a public announcement about it. So, as the first person to go public with this issue his calls for returning it to the private sphere seem only to benefit Indy by not requiring that he discuss his perfidy where the rest of the Mote can see it.
Should he, or anyone, be allowed to write emails and sign other people's names to them?
No. It is a privacy violation.
Is this a Mote issue? To the extent that it is, I disagree that it has anything to do with the specifics of the MsG "incident". Either it's acceptable to use other people's names without their permission or it's not.
I agree. It could have been a letter to anyone and it is not acceptable to sign other people's names without their knowledge and consent.
...is it the Mote's business, from a policy perspective?
It's Mote business because the original proposal was published in the Mote, the complaints were directed to a Moderator and the attempt to handle it privately was declined it in order to make a public post about the situation.
|
