|
443. Spudboy - 9/23/1999 9:30:06 AM At worst, in my opinion, Irv should have been warned (complicated, of course, by the fact that he was the person issuing the warnings back then) and Thomas should have been reprimanded. Neither, however, occurred.
In the interim, however, Thomas's defenders have played down his offense by placing the blame on Irv as the original source of info. But the difference between the two was substantial. I know in my mind who was more deserving of punishment. And I don't think the new rules address the differences in the natures and means of the revelations. Moreover, I get the impression that under the proposed system, it would actually be Irv who would be punished, and Thomas would get off scot-free. 444. AceofSpades - 9/23/1999 11:44:34 AM
Clearing the refuse-to-post bug; disregard. 445. wabbit - 9/23/1999 11:58:23 PM Spudboy,
If Irv made the post linking to the article with your knowledge and explicit consent, he's in the clear. But you are right in that ThomasD would also not be punished in that case, since the link between your real name and online name would have been made in the post by Irv. If Irv made the post without your knowledge and consent, then both Irv and ThomasD would be in violation of the RoE as they are stated in post #418.
Do we need to specify that one should not post links to anything that reveals someone else's personal info? 446. Nostradamus - 9/24/1999 1:40:31 AM I'm new here, and my position is sure to be a minority one, but I'll weigh in with my 2 cents anyway.
It seems to me that the more obsessive you become about protecting personal information that you've already been indiscreet enough to reveal the more interested people will become in finding and revealing that information.
It also seems to me that the more you rely on 'rules' and ban threats instead of trusting one another to behave like kind, considerate, polite, decent human beings, the more people will try to find loopholes to your rules, follow their literal meaning, and behave like jackasses.
447. Spudboy - 9/24/1999 2:38:31 AM Wabbit: I guess that was the point I was trying to get to -- that you can reveal a person's ID merely with a link. I would make that specification. (FWIW, Irv didn't have my permission, but then, I hadn't explained to him that I'd wanted to remain anonymous. Our only other for-publication writer at the time, cllrdr, had no compunction about revealing his ID, and I think most of my friends figured I probably felt the same.) 448. pseudoerasmus - 9/24/1999 10:02:07 PM So where are these new faces everyone has been wanting to invite? So far I've only seen one, and the rest are just the same old bloody mugs of yore. 449. CalGal - 9/25/1999 6:20:12 AM Pseudo--the number of new people signed up is amazing, considering we haven't done any real promotion. We've gotten people from the Poetry connection that Blaise provided, the CNN connection that Stone provided, and a decent amount of newbies from Tabletalk.
450. SoupIsGoodFood - 9/28/1999 12:49:30 AM What is the policy about people with access to the Mote user database speculating on the identity behind people's Mote handles? 451. SoupIsGoodFood - 9/28/1999 2:01:37 AM "CalGal" is still addressing me with a different handle (see "Try the Mote"). I strongly suggest that the people in charge here not share information they have gleaned from the user database. Thank you.
I await some response, preferably not from "CalGal". 452. dusty - 9/28/1999 2:22:29 AM SoupIsGoodFood
What leads you to believe she has access?
BTW, thanks for mentioning this Thread in Try the Mote, I didn't even know that it existed.
453. SoupIsGoodFood - 9/28/1999 3:32:46 AM It was reported either here or in another forum that "CalGal" has or has had access to the user database; she herself mentioned that in order to resolve another user's problem or to ban a disobedient user -- don't remember the details -- she accessed the database.
I don't like being referred to by another handle. I don't like the idea that she is possibly gaining information about me from the user database and divulging it publicly in this forum. I understood that that behavior was contrary to the rules. 454. SoupIsGoodFood - 9/28/1999 3:37:14 AM I quote:
"Personal information*
For revealing private information, we ban your id. Or assume we will--while we allow an out for clearly inadvertent revelations of non-critical information, it's best not to count on the mercy of the judge.
Do not mess around with this rule.
Don't try to push the envelope.
Don't ask, "What if...?"
Don't try to be cute.
Just don't go near the line. This is the most damaging RoE violation, and the one we take the most seriously.
* Public information
1. Has been revealed with the individual's knowledge and explicit consent
2. Has been explicitly linked to the individual's online identity"
I submit that "CalGal" is in violation of this rule. 455. 109109 - 9/28/1999 4:00:35 AM Soup
Yeah. You were absolutely impossible to tag. Your submission is denied on the basis of excess goofiness.
Oh wait.
I should be more formal.
The Court: These are serious charges. Cal, how do you plead?
Cal: Fucking Stevie Wonder could have guessed it was tp.
The Court: Motion denied on goofiness.
456. SoupIsGoodFood - 9/28/1999 4:24:21 AM Actually, I'd prefer to hear from "wabbit". 457. 109109 - 9/28/1999 4:26:20 AM Motion for transfer to a new judge - denied. 458. SoupIsGoodFood - 9/28/1999 7:22:33 AM wabbit, does "109109" speak for you and The Mote? 459. Dusty - 9/28/1999 8:04:35 AM I think I read the whole thread, but I missed why unregistering is a one-way street. Can someone explain? Frankly, it sounds infantile. 460. wabbit - 9/28/1999 8:08:24 AM Soup,
CalGal was given limited access by Alistair in order to delete a series of posts by a serial ID. She no longer has access to any information other than the Movies thread which she is hosting. I will ask CalGal not to refer to you by any name other than the moniker you are using now.
109109 speaks for himself. 461. CalGal - 9/28/1999 8:30:27 AM Heavens, there's no need for you to ask me, Wabbit.
Soup, had you requested, I would instantly have stopped referring to you by anything other than a version of your current moniker. I was unaware of your objections to the use of prior monikers, and I am sorry if I have defamed your previous moniker--or your current one--in any way. 462. JayAckroyd - 9/28/1999 10:38:01 AM CG--
I gotta say that I've been confused by references to past monikers, especially monikers in that other place. It's probably a good idea, both for the reason soup's expressing and to avoid insider references, to stick to cuurrent monickers.
Yes, I know when people change monikers there will be guessing games and stuff. Aside from the point that this is yet another problem with allowing monikers at all, it's still probably best to assume that you're close to a personal info boundary when you guess at monikers.
|
