|
325. CalGal - 9/20/1999 9:15:46 AM Angel,
Yes, you are wrong. You just haven't figured it out yet.
And no, none of your actions since the other day are relevant to me in judging you for what you did at that moment. You're under scrutiny now, and on your best behavior. At the time, you thought it was all so clever of Seguine to do it.
I have not said your apology was a fake. I'm sure you meant it, as limp as it was. 326. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 9:24:12 AM
"Ciphers are fair game."
It is not dissembling to accuse you of bad motives when the most heavy-handed censor in Fray or Mote history suddenly decides NOT to censor a post which reveals a Moter's name, despited repeated, heated demands to do so. Despite being informed that it was a crackable cipher. Despite God and Kuligan both announcing that they would begin working on cracking it.
Despite that you your self noted it was a fair cipher when you said, "Ciphers are fair game." 327. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 9:34:04 AM
I think revelation of the big three in personal information-- name, address, phone number-- should be automatic bannable offenses, except in the rare case where there is legitimate confusion about whether or not the Moter has revealed that information. Spudboy, for example, now wants his anonymity back. That's fine, and I won't refer to his name. However, an infrequent poster who remembers him from his book hosting thread might think his name is public information and refer to it. That's a case of legitimate confusion, and perhaps he should be let off with a warning. Next offense, suspension or banning.
Seguine should be banned. That's the truth, and JJ, Wabbit, Alistair and the rest know it. They just don't want to do it, so we hear these bullshit excuses about "heated discussions" and "valued members."
If they want to declare Seguine above the law, that's fine-- for the past infraction. But never again should any Poster, no matter how "valued," no matter how connected to the Sun's Eye, no matter how chummy with the powers that be, be penalized anything short of an outright banning for this kind of offense.
328. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 10:17:44 AM
You have gone on the record first saying that I didn't act to delete for nearly an hour, then over an hour, and now in TT I see you've said it took me an hour and a half.
It took over an hour. 329. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 11:07:14 AM Hell. This is pointless and I've said my piece. Those who are content to believe me will, those who are content to believe CalGal will. I've voiced my thoughts about the nature of the RoE and privacy and anonymity. Whatever we decide to implement in terms of rules changes will be fine with me, so long as the moderator agrees with them, as I trust Wabbit to have similar concerns to mine without all the hoopla surrounding my alleged ulterior motives to contend with. An if it harm none, she'll do as she wilt. 330. CalGal - 9/20/1999 12:27:30 PM Actually, I'm not sure that rules need to be changed. I still think the original definition works well--apparently, we just need to spell out the interpretation. And I say "apparently" because of the questions that arose. Questions that never arose when the same basic policy was used at the Fray. Not that I am bitter.
On the way home, I just thought of another possible distinction, god forbid.
If someone researched a Mote member to find the information--buzz! Gone. Thanks for playing. To me, that suggests a commitment to doing harm that goes well beyond the immediate impulse.
Suppose someone doesn't reveal their gender or their name. Another poster takes whatever information they do reveal and researches it and reveals info--whether it turns out to be accurate or not--then that's bannable. I can't imagine any other interpretation.
BTW, I'm not expecting all of this to be spelled out in the RoE. But again, given all the need to question, I think we should spell out the method by which it will be interpreted--with the option to change if some idiot decides to challenge it further.
And before someone tells me that there's no point in anticipating something that might never come up--that's what got us here, isn't it? Personally, I'd just as soon not have a policy debate everytime these come up. 331. CoralReef - 9/20/1999 12:47:55 PM • Ace has brought up an issue that I think will work as a additional form of consequence--he suggests that Res shouldn't be allowed to host a thread without a babysitter. In Res' specific case, I agree.
Idiotic. And infantile.
• If someone researched a Mote member to find the information--buzz! Gone. Thanks for playing. To me, that suggests a commitment to doing harm that goes well beyond the immediate impulse.
Really stupid. Breathtakingly stupid. I will never belong to any forum that claims to put restrictions my behavior outside of it.
• As a result, we are never going to get to the point of banning someone like Seguine, no matter how egregious the violation.
Complete and utter bullshit, and you know it.
CalGal, I'm going to put this in the language you understand: you are prosecuting this to the extent you are to be a manipulating mean fuck. Knock it off. 332. CalGal - 9/20/1999 1:08:18 PM Coral,
I'm not prosecuting this at all. I've already said I don't think Seguine should be banned.
I do very much object to the excuses that have been provided for her, and I'm pointing them out to illustrate what I think we need to avoid--namely, this bullshit of the "valuable Mote Member" getting special treatment. In fact, I think it is so inevitable that I'm suggesting we incorporate attitudes such as yours, rather than fight it.
As for Res--shrug. I agree with Ace. I think his behavior was way out of line. If a thread host can't be trusted to uphold the RoE, then I really don't want him hosting.
He saw the violation, he thought it was clever, he POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS A CIPHER (which, incidentally, I didn't see), he then refused judiciously when Ace demanded it be deleted--and only when I demanded it did he delete it, with a sigh that I was probably overreacting.
He let his personal opinions of the people in question determine his actions.
Do I think it's likely that this restriction will take effect? Unlikely. Shrug again. That's life. We're very worried here, apparently, about causing Seg and Res any embarrassment for their behavior. Surely they've suffered enough.
However, I think the restriction on someone who has been banned in the future makes sense.
I will never belong to any forum that claims to put restrictions my behavior outside of it.
If you're out there researching information on other Mote members, I really don't give a damn if you choose not to belong. Since it's unlikely you are, I doubt it will be an issue.
Besides, we've already established several possibilities for banning people from this forum because of behavior outside it--namely, if they publish personal information in another forum. I don't remember you objecting then.
333. CalGal - 9/20/1999 1:08:36 PM And the day that you announce that Seguine is a mean manipulating fuck for deliberately posting my name in a code that has but one translation and then calling attention to it on the offchance that people missed it (to say nothing of the misspelling and the mention of where she found it)--well, that will be the day that you'll start being someone whose opinion in these matters isn't based on whether or not you like the person involved. Which is the day that your opinion on these issues will start to matter. 334. CalGal - 9/20/1999 1:11:12 PM ....matter to me, that is. 335. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 1:12:53 PM
"you are prosecuting this to the extent you are to be a manipulating mean fuck."
Blame the victim. What right does she have to be upset about Seguine? Why can't she take Coral's blase attitude? Doesn't Cal realize that Seguine is "valued" by CoralReef? Doesn't she realize that Seguine only did what she did because she was in a "heated" argument?
Why on earth should she suggest tough rules to prevent this from happening again? What right does she have?
336. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 1:16:37 PM
And no one has satisfied my request: Please list the Moters who are "valued" enough to break the RoE with impunity so I can avoid getting in "heated exchanges" with this dangerous Untouchables.
And am I one of them? How much leeway do I get? Can I reveal some sensitive information? How about if I don't quite say it, but merely rhyme it? 337. CalGal - 9/20/1999 1:21:46 PM Incidentally, I earlier said that Spudboy was claiming that the damage was worse to him than me because he was a public figure. That wasn't what he was saying at all, and I apologize for the sarcasm--which was only directed at the silliness of such a claim. I'm relieved, quite frankly, to determine that I had misread. Spud, I'm sorry. 338. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 1:24:35 PM
Hold on-- is Angel deleting posts in this thread? Is he this thread's host?
Why the hell was he given another job of hosting a thread? 339. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 1:45:28 PM
Wabbit:
You haven't explained your reasoning on the Seguine situation yet. Originally, I assumed it was based on the "unbreakable cipher" defense, but we now know that isn't true. 340. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 3:31:53 PM Ace: (grin)
If you can't read on your own for the answer, I'll give you a stock one. (grinning wider) It's because they know me better than you do. Or maybe it's my good looks. I can never tell. Have a nice day, anyway! (waving at Ace) 342. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 4:14:36 PM How'd that happen ? Anyway, Ace, before you do one of your patented Jesus Lizard freakouts about what I said, just go back and actually read. 344. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 5:04:56 PM Something is screwy here. My posts are repeating.
(blissful grin) Oh,well, it must be the air in here. Most everything else repeats itself too. 345. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 5:06:56 PM Something is screwy here. My posts are repeating.
(blissful grin) Oh,well, it must be the air in here. Most everything else repeats itself too. 346. AdamSelene - 9/20/1999 11:05:46 PM God (no quotes,) are you guys still arguing over this stupid policy stuff? Come on - shit happens, life goes on. What hasn't been decided yet? All the possible future variations? Give it up - never happen. Which is why we have a human judge (or three.) And not everyone will like every outcome. But if some people wanna flame every decision until the cows come home, at least we have a semi-private place like this to do it. See, the Mote is working very well already!
|
