|
228. Angel-Five - 9/19/1999 4:45:20 PM I don't know. I honestly don't see what the point is about personal info, to be honest (and I've had my personal info misused in a fairly creepy way). I know that it will never be implemented here, and it's no good unless everyone does it, but I like the notion of going real names. The Well has done it for years and in my time there I do not remember hearing about a single abuse -- AND I can remember a lot less nastiness. The major cause is the lack of anonymity. Anonymity in this place, and in the Fray as well (where I argued against it as well) allows for one really damaging kind of behavior. It allows people to act in a manner that would get them tarred and feathered in real life, and allows them to post things that would earn them a life-threatening beating in any forum where they were in close physical proximity to the people who had to listen to them. Yet, in an anonymous forum, there is little to tie someone to their IRL identity and thus they can go about engaging in all sorts of OL behavior without any fear of repercussion. (No, I'm not advocating the threat of violence as a possible socializing agent -- just illustrating a point.) The fact of the matter is that there are many people in the Mote who would act entirely different were they to run any risk of damaging their reputation, and they do and say many things that they wouldn't dream of saying if someone could look at them and say -- 'You! Joe Blow! I can't believe you're saying that!' This is often innocent or at least harmless -- think of a given day in the old Social thread, complete with flirtation and steam-letting. And there are indeed some number of things allowed by anonymity that if not beneficial are at least neutral. 229. Angel-Five - 9/19/1999 4:45:42 PM Multiples (which can be really damaging) can also be fun and useful. Personae are a good actor's tool. Some shy types find that the anonymous nature of the Fray/Mote allowed them to say things they'd have otherwise felt too constrained to say. And, of course, some people use anonymity to construct a fantasy-based identity, and while these people can be very creepy to interact with, I don't see any problem with them in a community as long as they are a positive asset otherwise. But if you look at the very real problems with the Mote and with the Fray before it, the problems we all think of and most of us bitched about when the Fray was in its long decline, they almost all come down to flagrant misuse of anonymity. The anonymity also encourages people to take other Motiers as, well, less than human. Even more so than normal when the other 'humans' you see on your monitor are, to you, no more than 0s and 1s as far as you can physically tell. You will not only be much more likely to misuse other people in an anonymous situation but be more likely to be misused. It's common psychology. And while I'd miss a lot of the loose banter that goes on (some people would probably be too self-conscious to flirt and gambol about if it were their real name on everyone else's screen) I certainly wouldn't miss a lot of the abusive and manipulative crap that people serve up knowing that they'll never be affected by it. I personally don't think that you ought to say something if you don't have the guts to put your name next to it, and if you're terribly worried about people learning your ID I'd have to ask what it is that you do which would cause so many people to want to screw with you. And if you will insist that this would kill the forum -- remember, the Well's been around for a LONG time. 230. Spudboy - 9/19/1999 10:56:05 PM Well, as the victim of a rather egregious case of blown anonymity -- my name didn’t merely appear in an obscure post as an encrypted message, but was plastered in the “hot” Politics thread in capital letters (in the Fray, which meant it was exposed to a rather broader segment of the public) -- let me come to the defense of keeping people anonymous if they wish to do so.
I liked having the cover of anonymity for precisely the reasons AngelFive elucidates: It allowed me to behave differently than I would as a professional. But that’s because I make my living as a writer. My real name is attached to my professional work. My reputation is built on that. I would never attempt to publish some of the stuff I can do in a place like The Mote. That was precisely the pleasure of it for me; it let me shelve my professional persona and just be myself, or at least to let loose some of the stuff that gets pent up because I have to spend so much of my day being objective. It let me be more partisan, more pugnacious, than I certainly would ever conduct myself professionally.
What dismayed me about having my name and work splattered, rather maliciously, about the Fray is that it meant a sizeable enough segment of the public would be able to attach my Spudboy persona with my professional one. It didn’t stop for awhile, and by the time it had, the damage was largely irreparable. Something had to give. (cont'd) 231. Spudboy - 9/19/1999 10:57:55 PM When I finally outed myself in the Fray, it was out of frustration with the fact that my anonymity wasn’t secure there. Thus I announced at the time that I’d be sticking to more sedate, factual or journalistic exchanges (a vow that has occasionally been difficult to live up to, I’ll admit ... my subsequent hunting debate with Elliot springs to mind, as does my recent regrettable exchange with Ace ... though mostly I’ve managed to stick to it ...). And there’s been little doubt that my lack of freedom has directly affected my desire to post, either in the Fray afterward (outside, of course, of the thread I hosted) or here.
Now, maybe the rest of The More should be forced to be more in the line of the standards I’d be required to meet as a professional. It certainly would make the debate more straightforward and civil. But it would be a hell of a lot less fun. I think anonymity gives participants a great cushion that lets them be fiery. I do think it gets over the line, and I wouldn’t mind seeing some more active moderation in that regard. (Yes, Ace, I agree; you would actually be a magnificent debater if you could shed just some of the nastiness. The unimaginative stuff in particular.) But overall, I think losing anonymity would be to the forum’s great detriment.
I will admit that I was somewhat astonished that my predicament, when my name and work was getting splattered about the Fray, didn’t spur any more outrage than my own, which I mostly muted outside of those moments when the outing was reoccurring. There were, sad to say, no extended opuses or thousand-post threads extolling the absolute need to shield participants from having their real-life identities exposed. (cont'd) 232. Spudboy - 9/19/1999 10:59:44 PM No one called for the person who published my name in capital letters (and who subsequently kept bringing up my IRL work, further shredding my anonymity) in the Fray to be banned. All of which, in my mind, casts some doubt on the motives for all this extended discussion of Seguine’s behavior and the appropriate punishment.
Seguine shouldn’t have published the cipher. I think she owes CalGal an apology (just as I felt Thomas owed me one at the time ... which I never received), though the matter has been pushed so far now that I’d be surprised if it were forthcoming. And, just as I asked for Thomas to receive a warning, I think Seguine should also. But banning? Give me a break! Seguine has a long and worthy record of being a civil contributor to the debate in this online community, and I don’t think a single intemperate mistake should obliterate that. Nor should it obliterate the fact that she happens to be the editor/publisher of the magazine that’s kind enough to host us (I admit I have wondered if she won’t simply tire of the abuse she’s endured over this and simply say fuck it and pull the plug on our little playpen, though I know she is a bigger person than that). Secondarily, it wasn’t the kind of exposure that would reveal CalGal’s identity to a large segment of the public (I don’t know very many people who know how to solve ciphers, frankly, but maybe I’m missing something), and I really don’t think she did it maliciously. It seemed to me that it occurred within the context of a lively debate involving hypotheticals, and she crossed a line that’s easy to transgress. (cont'd) 233. Spudboy - 9/19/1999 11:01:24 PM Now, I wouldn’t wish what happened to Jenerator on anyone, even though I have no great affection for her. God/Cat in the Hat was obviously being malicious, and I can’t imagine anything more humiliating than that kind of exposure. His behavior was so egregious that I completely concur with the way that Wabbit handled it. But I like letting the moderators have the leeway to use their own judgment on who gets banned if such a drastic step needs to be taken. I think anyone taking a balanced view of Seguine will admit that she in no way deserves to be banned -- unless, of course, she repeats the behavior or has a subsequent egregious transgression. A warning should suffice.
This may make the system more subjective than some here would like, but I don’t think you’re going to be able to escape that. Ultimately, someone’s going to have make subjective judgments about violations and levels of egregiousness. And an automatic ban, I think, opens us up to precisely the biggest problem that I saw develop in the Fray: Someone gets a bug up his ass about another Fraygrant, concocts a violation on flimsy pretenses, and then stamps about and jumps and shouts and threatens to turn blue in the face until something’s done about it ... and succeeds in getting that other Fraygrant banned. That scenario, frankly, was the biggest turn-off in all my time in the Fray -- even more than getting my name used there. And now we’re seeing it play out again. The reason I raised the Thomas situation again the other day was simple: I don’t believe that the two chief complainants here are pursuing this out of their fervent belief that people’s anonymity should be protected (else they’d have come to my defense, rather than the perpetrator’s, when it happened in more egregious circumstances). The entire tone and mode of behavior has indicated an underlying vindictiveness toward Seguine. If they succeed in getting her banned, you can kiss off the participation of people like me. (cont'd) 234. Spudboy - 9/19/1999 11:02:56 PM I have been, as I noted previously, lurking for awhile now, mulling over whether or not to join in. My time constraints are severe right now, but I’m looking at some open time beginning in November, and I might be persuaded to put some energy into this place for awhile. I’m watching this scenario play out carefully, because it’s going to determine my decision.
I really only want to participate if we can be a genuine community, which requires openness and a desire to bring in new blood. At a time when The Mote should be building its community, and trying to bring fresh people in, trying to be at least somewhat welcoming in nature, I find that the bulk of the energy being expended here is aimed at driving people out. The most prominent discussion here has been about tearing the place apart. It’s really too bad. This forum had such promise.
I’ll check back in November and see if it’s gotten any better. If it’s still here. 235. AdamSelene - 9/19/1999 11:26:47 PM Spudboy,
I agree with virtually all of your sentiments - I think the anonymity is valuable in letting us express alternate opinions and other playful aspects of ourselves. I'm not nearly so radical in real life (believe it or not) but in this forum it's save to be extreme and see how far you can take someting. It would be a lot less fun without it. My only slight disagreement is your expectation that the Mote will turn into something that you can come back to... It might not do that unless people like you are willing to invest a little time now during the shaping period. Not that I'm helping all that much myself, but it's true nonetheless. 236. pellenilsson - 9/20/1999 12:19:24 AM Spudboy
These are good posts. I agree with you. There are no doubt people who are in the public eye in one way or the other and who would like to argue from a purely personal point of view and with more abandon.
And I would submit that these are persons whom we would like to see here.
I post under my real name but that has nothing to do with principles. I didn't know any better when I signed up the first time and then I thought, who would like to mess around with a guy from Sweden, an odd man out in this forum? So I never bothered to change. 237. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 12:54:06 AM
Hello? 238. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 12:55:01 AM But banning? Give me a break! Seguine has a long and worthy record of being a civil contributor to the debate in this online community, and I don’t think a single intemperate mistake should obliterate that.
Once again, this gets into the bullshit "I like the person who committed the violation so she gets to commit bannable offenses with impunity" territory.
If you all are going to circle your wagons around your buddy Seguine and pretend what she did wasn't malicious, or that she just "didn't know" that she was supposed to do it, fine. That's a separate argument. But FUTURE intentional revelations of sensitive information should be grounds for immediate banning, first time or not, "valued contributor" or not, "editor of the Sun's Eye" or not, no warnings, sayanora, auf wiedersehen, aloha, goodbye.
239. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 12:55:13 AM
Nor should it obliterate the fact that she happens to be the editor/publisher of the magazine that’s kind enough to host us
If this is to be the rule, put it in the RoE so everyone is on notice not to argue with Adrianne, Seguine, etc., as they are allowed to break the rules with impunity.
Incidentally, what Cat in the Hat did, if I understand it correctly (and I'm only relying on his say so), was far less egregious than what Seguine did. I don't like "God," I do not consider him a "valuable contributor," and I LOVE Jenerator. Well, not love, but like a lot. Nevertheless, his "revelations" are simply a lesser offense than revealing a full name.
And yet, because God is "not valued" and Seguine is "valued," Seg gets a "warning" and God gets a ban.
God's penalty, as it stands now, of a two week suspension is in the ballpark of being fair (if I understand what he did correctly). I'd prefer a month, myself, but it's in the ballpark, at least).
A "warning" for revealing an entire name is obscene. If everyone wants this obscenity to stand, fine. But I don't want this obscenity ever repeated.
240. JudithAtHome - 9/20/1999 1:46:34 AM God has posted in TT that he is through with the Mote and has resigned. Then he goes on to trash Jen yet again and show his own rather unique take on reality. 241. KuligintheHooligan - 9/20/1999 2:22:51 AM Does it strike anybody as "odd" the assumed lack of trust in this forum? I guess what I am saying is, if you trust lowlifes that will come back later and dump all sorts of personal information about you, what does that say about you? We can all condemn 'God' all we want to, but Jen's choice of "friends" wasn't the wisest either it seems.
I guess what I am saying is, you reap what you sow in a sense. If you choose untrustworthy people as friends, be prepared to have it backfire on you in the future.
Now what has happened is he has been "forced" to dump even more information about the situation (in TT) than he ever did in the Mote! And there isn't a darn thing anybody can do about it. But, if we had just ignored his posts, he may not have said much more at all.
I really don't know. I am just "thinking out loud" here.
I also have a question about this personal information stuff. Let's say Ace comes in and accuses me of having a homosexual relationship with elliot803. Of course, that isn't true at all, but is a FALSE accusation like that one also cause for banning? Because false accusations can be just as damaging as true ones. 242. PsychProf - 9/20/1999 2:30:14 AM How come some Moters get to be two people(see list)...can we out one of them? 243. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 2:30:40 AM
CalGal wasn't Seguine's friend and didn't "trust" her with any information.
False accusations really oughtn't garner too stiff a penalty, especially if the accusation is made against an anonymous poster. A false accusation against Cellar should be considered more serious, since he's "outed" and such an accusation is, indeed, libelous. A false accusation against an anonymous poster isn't quite such a big deal. CalGal is now in an itermediate category, thanks to Seguine, as a whole raft of people now know who she is.
This is an issue that simply isn't amenable to bright-line rules. One has to separate opinions ("Cellar is an idiot") from false factual accusations ("Cellar is a straight man pretending to be gay in order to be accepted by the gay community, the only community which watches the films he reviews").
Decisions in this area are necessarily much more subjective than the types of revelations we've been talking about. 244. CoralReef - 9/20/1999 2:38:29 AM What I didn't understand about the inoffensiveness of handles debate was this: the fray used to have some really out-there handles, like "Stinky Pecker" was one memorable one. A claim has been made that the Mote is starting from the same point as the fray, but that doesn't jibe with the handles rule. 245. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 2:42:54 AM
Coral:
Well, JJ has said he "doesn't mind" sexually-tilted handles.
I do, but JJ, who's making these decisions, is apparently adhering to the Fray's old standards, then. 246. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 2:54:06 AM A whole host of people knew who CalGal was before, as by her own admission that about 10% of the old fray didn't know her name. That doesn't make what happened less of a violation, but I don't see why it should be represented differently than reality. A note: Seguine did apologize, incidentally. When she chooses to return I'd imagine she, if she feels it's worthwhile, can explain on her own terms why she isn't posting now and why she did what she did. All I feel compelled to point out now is that she hasn't been banned, or even tossed in the 'sin bin', and she still isn't posting. She did receive a warning and rebuke (which is something I'm glad to see that Ace is finally acknowledging). I'd also like to question why we shouldn't take past actions into consideration when we judge these sorts of things. After all, judges do. I, myself, see no problem at all in analyzing the cases of, say, God and Seguine on different bases -- one has acted as a relentless troublemaker in the forum and has yet to see fit to actually contribute. The other has contributed a great deal to both forums.
247. CalGal - 9/20/1999 2:54:40 AM There are a few points that some people seem to miss, over and over again:
- The rules say don't release private information. I am incredibly tired of people determining their reaction based on how they feel about the rule. You don't like the rule? Support a change. Until then, try not to dismiss violations based on your own personal feelings about them. Particularly amusing is Spud's support of the anonymity--but then his determination that his violation was worse than mine, because I'm not a public figure. Alas. The rules don't distinguish. Perhaps they should, but until then, one violation is as important as another. And I did support Spud on that, once I found out that Irv had deleted the post. I wouldn't have had any issue if ThomasD had been banned.
- I'm with Ace all the way on this nonsense of the identity of the poster mattering. If we're going to do that, then I agree that we should announce this in the RoE. Seguine can pretty much do anything she wants, because she's the magazine editor. I can announce coral's name and everyone will just delete the post and look the other way because I built the butterscotch bar. It's absurd.
For those of you who think that Seguine just overstepped the bounds in a heated debate--in the first place, it wasn't heated at all. In the second place, suppose it had been Irv instead of me, articulating the policy. Would Seguine have posted the easy to translate cipher of his name?
No. Nor would she have done the same thing if it had been Wabbit.
Let's not pretend it wasn't personal, intentional, and done to cause damage. You want to keep her? Fine. I wouldn't have supported a banning anyway, but I think a suspension would have been in order. But these descriptions of what she did are just so many rationalizations.
|
