|
372. Ace of Spades - 9/21/1999 6:43:15 AM
Wabbit:
But your new solution doesn't take into account the quality of the information revealed. I agree-- full name, automatic ban, or even just the last name.
But first names aren't quite as serious. Nor is it quite as serious for God, as he did the other day, to reveal that someone might work at/attend a large university. That's "personal information," but it does not reveal who someone is.
For lesser revelations like this, I wouldn't mind a discretionary system. Short suspensions, long suspensions, banning, depending on the quality of information divulged.
Full name/last name and address and phone number should always be bannable. I wouldn't consider any of God's revelations bannable myself (though I won't protest his banning).
Another example: JadeGold. Let's say she starts posting here. She has told everybody (a BAZILLION times) that she attended a military academy. Which one? Who knows. But if I make fun of her and say "Oh, Jade, why don't you go back to the Air Force Academy to learn more about aircraft maintanence," that's not a revelation, that's a guess between the three possibilities (West Point, Annapolis, AFA; assuming that she isn't talking about some lesser Academy like The Citadel or whatnot).
And now what if she cries, "That IS where I went to school; that's a revelation!" Well, how the hell was I supposed to know that?
When I talk to people, sometimes I'll call them "Jack." As in, "Look here, Jack, you're a dummy." What if the person I call "Jack" is really named "Jack"?
373. arkymalarky - 9/21/1999 6:46:40 AM Ace, you think too much. 374. CalGal - 9/21/1999 6:52:45 AM Yes, he is a problem thinker. I speak as a fellow sufferer.
I really think that the definition of public vs. private will cover that, Ace. 375. Ace of Spades - 9/21/1999 6:54:03 AM
Arky:
It's a real possibility. If the standard is "automatic banning for ANY information revealed," there can be just that kind of silliness.
If we have to choose between such draconianism and the "system" we've had in place until now, I'd favor the draconian solution. I guess I'll just have to avoid calling anyone "Jack" from now on.
But there will be occasions when what is public and what is not public is in dispute, and there's no way to verify. What then? I've stated that I work for an insurance company; if someone says I work at Zurich, and they're right (or even more insidious: If I CLAIM that they're right, even though they're not, just to get them banned), what then?
Automatic banning? Suspension? Warning?
I don't think the banning would be "automatic" in such a situation. We can write the rules any way we want, but I see no point in claiming that the bans will be automatic if, in fact, they won't be. That'll just lead to further disputes. 376. wabbit - 9/21/1999 6:55:01 AM Ace,
I agree, but again, it becomes a matter of discretion. Rule #1 can be modified to read full name or including last name. I prefer that, because it would allow for Riv's example of an honest mistake. The post would be deleted and the poster would be reminded to indulge in a bit more caffeine and pay closer attention.
I think the same would apply to your Jack example. People named Jack, or John Doe, must recognize the universality of their name, and in that case would be better off not pointing out that it actually was their name.
In the case of god, I was thinking about the first post I deleted, not the second.
I also suspect that we are going to have to get over some of our history now. I hope that Jade would know that you were guessing and not verify the information. Or maybe the onus should be left on you. You could say "Oh, Jade, why don't you go back to the Air Force Academy to learn more about aircraft maintanence, or the Naval Academy and swab some decks, or Westpoint where you can run amok torturing plebes" and cover your butt beforehand, n'est pas? 377. wabbit - 9/21/1999 6:57:55 AM I'm off to dinner with the nieces. Cal or Ace, could you please repost the public/private definition? Thanks. I shall return. 378. Ace of Spades - 9/21/1999 6:58:47 AM
Although I do support automatic bans for the big revelations.
Hmmmmm... If someone did reveal I worked at Zurich, how would I know to believe them if they claimed they were "just guessing among several insurance companies," rather than revealing that as a fact which they were certain of?
That's a problematic case, I guess. If Wabbit wants to automatically ban for that stuff, fine, but I'm not sure it's really workable. If I know the rules, I can modify what I say, and will just say that Jade went to "Joe Blow Military Academy." Easy enough. But what about newbies that don't realize how draconian the rules are? 379. wabbit - 9/21/1999 7:01:03 AM Maybe we can link the registration page to the RoE? Ask them to be sure to read the RoE carefully, because we mean it? 380. Ace of Spades - 9/21/1999 7:01:46 AM
What if someone really IS named Nitwit or Moron or Jagoff?
You can see the bind I'm in. 381. arkymalarky - 9/21/1999 7:03:20 AM I really like what I read of the rules. It seems very workable to me, but I agree about the first name adjustment. I try to be extremely careful, because it's a fear of mine that I'll accidently divulge a first name when I'm not supposed to. Kuligan has told people already they're welcome to use his first name, but I thought about the discussion in here and called him KtheH instead. 382. arkymalarky - 9/21/1999 7:05:11 AM "Hmmmmm... If someone did reveal I worked at Zurich, how would I know to believe them if they claimed they were "just guessing among several insurance companies," rather than revealing that as a fact which they were certain of?"
I guess the moral to that would be don't guess. What business do they have guessing? 383. Ace of Spades - 9/21/1999 7:05:31 AM
I think revealing a first name CAN be a bannable offense, if it's done maliciously. But not if it's clearly accidental.
I'd support a suspension, even in accidental cases. 384. Ace of Spades - 9/21/1999 7:08:38 AM
Arky:
Yes, I suppose. You really can't differentiate between "revelations" and "guesses" without being too discretionary.
It just seems a little crazy, though. If I'm talking to you, and I say "Teaching in Little Rock is a lot different than teaching in New York City," and let's say you do live in Little Rock (I have no idea; I swear; it's the only town I know in Arkansas other than Hope), is that grounds for banning? 385. arkymalarky - 9/21/1999 7:17:04 AM Well, Ace, if you were asking me that with the obvious implication being that you knew where I taught, then you would be crossing the line, imo. Just making a general statement about teaching in AR or LR has nothing to do with me. If it is an effort to pin down a town, and you said teaching in Podunk is different from NYC, then it would be a line crosser, too. 386. Ace of Spades - 9/21/1999 7:18:23 AM
In addition, my above post isn't even clearly a guess. I could just be telling you, a teacher in Arkansas, that teaching in Little Rock is different from teaching in New York. I'm just using Little Rock as an example that I'd imagine would have some evocative power to you.
Who's to say that I'm "guessing" you teach in LR? I'm not making any kind of statements about you; but you could conceivably claim I'm trying to out you.
387. Ace of Spades - 9/21/1999 7:21:08 AM
Arky:
But what you're doing is introducing discretion into a decision which we're claiming is no longer discretionary.
You can't say the ban will be automatic if I say "Podunk" (and "guess" right) but won't be automatic if I say "Little Rock" (and "guess" right).
That's not really "automatic" then. Then you're bringing in some kind of judgement.
You're sort of saying it's automatic, except when it isn't automatic.
Which is not automatic. 388. Ace of Spades - 9/21/1999 7:25:52 AM
Why not just say: "Revealing any personal information is PRESUMTIVELY grounds for immediate, automatic banning. The only situations in which this will not result in immediate, automatic banning are in cases of clearly inadvertant revelations of fairly trivial personal information."
389. arkymalarky - 9/21/1999 7:26:45 AM No, I'm saying if you "guess" or dance around revealing info in that way you should be out for at least a suspension, but that should be at the discretion of the moderator and thread host with the views of the targeted party as expressed privately by email taken into consideration.
And cut this out! I feel like I've been sucked into a vortex. No law is perfect and judgment has got to enter in at some point. You want that point to arrive before everyone knows the birthday and eye color of your first born. 390. arkymalarky - 9/21/1999 7:27:19 AM Add the requisite "g" to that, lest you think I'm serious. 391. arkymalarky - 9/21/1999 7:29:04 AM OK. 388 is fine. Walk away slowly from that post without looking at it any more and go directly to the Politics thread. You won't believe what the liberals are saying in there.
|
