|
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. 1434. Indiana Jones - 7/18/2001 4:06:55 AM Cal (1430): As far as email and Mote policy, I refer you to your posts 13639 and 13645 in New Threads and Features in which you dispute with Ace over whether the Mote has any jurisdiction regarding anyone's posts on another board.
Specifically:
"I can't come up with any way that we can ban someone for what they do at another forum."
And:
"No, the moment he linked to it in this forum [emphasis mine], it was a violation. Likewise, if Charlie linked to what he posted, I would expect him to be banned."
Certainly your opinion must be then that email is extra-jurisdictional.
Moreover, unless someone here wants to make a case that I a) outed a Mote member, b) spammed a Mote thread, or c) was needlessly abusive in my posts to someone, then I will ignore any post(s) that purports to speak to Mote Policy regardless of the source--with one possible exception. (The RoE site appears to be down, so I cannot be sure that's all of the relevant violations, thus I quote from memory.)
I would like to see a Mote "policy" statement issued that says our email comes under the purview of the Mote moderators and its reception. If such a policy is announced, I suspect I will not be alone in being banned for refusing to obey it. 1435. Ms. No - 7/18/2001 4:07:19 AM Pelle,
It's a bit more serious than that since Indy can't even seem to bring himself to admit that he did anything wrong.
I believe we could move on if he would apologise to those he blundered against. So far he has seemed unwilling to do anything except claim that he either made no blunder or just doesn't feel that the matter should be discussed publicly despite the fact that he's the one who brought it to the attention of the public forum. 1436. Indiana Jones - 7/18/2001 4:15:37 AM Pelle: BTW, I regret my words to you the other day. I still don't agree with how you responded to me, but I've not always been perfect in my interactions with you either. For that discrepancy I apologize. 1437. arkymalarky - 7/18/2001 4:21:54 AM I don't think an apology is very useful wrt moving on if Indy remedies the situation with Irv and Maria, unless they request it as a necessary part of the remedy. An acknowledgement that people's id's should not be attached to statements (they were not attached as signatures to the email) without their express permission and an assurance that it won't be done in the future might be more helpful.
I essentially agree with Pelle if the matter has been settled to the satisfaction of Irv and Maria (except that to them it was a bit more than a simple blunder), but it's something that some might want to review in terms of the current policy, which is how I read Cal's post and why I posted the one following. 1438. CalGal - 7/18/2001 4:23:42 AM Indy,
This isn't an issue of email, but forgery and fraud (small case "f" in both instances).
Email is certainly not an issue for the Mote. Is forgery? Given that it didn't happen on the Mote, I tend to agree that as distasteful as your behavior is, it may not be a matter for the Mote. While it definitely feels like a privacy violation, I suppose that if we tolerate someone who posts a phone number in TT we can equally tolerate a forger who uses email.
That said, it is entirely within the rights of any Mote member to complain about it openly, and I see no reason why they can't publish the email in its entirety online without your consent. After all, in putting their name on it you implicitly said they wrote it. And to the extent that this means someone can regularly refer to you as a forger and a liar, you'll just have to cope. 1439. Indiana Jones - 7/18/2001 4:31:18 AM Cal: My, my, how you do go on.
Regardless of how you and others here wish to characterize it, such inflammatory language will have no effect on my decision to discuss the contents. It is none of your business. 1440. mgleason - 7/18/2001 4:38:50 AM It is my business, however, and I am due an explanation, here, since you made the matter public, Indiana. 1441. Ms. No - 7/18/2001 4:39:41 AM Arky,
An acknowledgement that people's id's should not be attached to statements (they were not attached as signatures to the email) without their express permission and an assurance that it won't be done in the future might be more helpful.
I agree.
it's something that some might want to review in terms of the current policy,
I also tend to agree with this. Long long ago we had similar problems and it was agreed upon that such things as impersonating other posters and forging emails were unacceptable. It was such a huge deal that I don't think it occurred to anyone to include it in the RoE.
At the time it would've been like saying "You're not allowed to kill other Moties" ----Kind of a big, Duh!
In light of the current situation, however, maybe we DO need such a rule to keep people from violating the privacy and identities of others in the forum.
Proposed RoE #5
Do not represent other Moties without their express knowledge and consent. 1442. CalGal - 7/18/2001 4:42:08 AM You don't have to discuss the contents, Indy. Anyone who is on the list can post it. After all, you put their name to it.
As for it not being my business--yes, actually, it is. "It" being whether or not a Mote member can forge or otherwise sign someone onto a statement in email. Thanks to your stupidity, it is now an issue for a policy discussion.
Besides, you seem not to have noticed that I am agreeing with you, for the most part.
The really irritating thing is that your asinine behavior will probably spur any number of copycats to send forgeries around. After all, you've just established that people can do anything they want in email.
|
