|
28. CalGal - 9/17/1999 7:28:59 PM 1046. pellenilsson - 9/18/99 1:46:00 AM
CalGal
I already stated that I support JJ. If your statement about going in and making strong statements is directed at me I ask you to remember that I am in a different time zone and have limited access to the net.
In addition, it is very difficult for voices of reason and moderation to make themselves heard when posts are pouring in by the minute.
Ace
I'm logged into TT and backtracking.
1047. CalGal - 9/18/99 1:50:30 AM
One more issue, going back to Pelle's comment about the esprit de corps that we had.
It is still there. The chumminess between Ace and Bubba is astounding. He just spoke well of the Ms.
We had other ex-Fraygrants show up. Full stop. To pretend otherwise is to deny reality.
1048. CalGal - 9/18/99 1:51:24 AM
Pelle,
No, I thought I changed everything to "they". I am speaking generally, not to you. Sorry. I'm cranky as all get out right now.
*********
I'm not copying all the posts; I just wanted the exchange between Pelle and me in here, since it pretty much says all I want to on the subject.
29. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 7:29:45 PM
Cal:
Oh! You're not copying my wonderful, wonderful rules?
I was waiting for them. Okay, let me go get them. 31. God - 9/17/1999 7:30:05 PM Ace
That's not for her to decide. They contributed levity, insight, genius, you name it. 32. CalGal - 9/17/1999 7:30:26 PM As well as Angel's rebuttal, I should have added. No, I didn't copy anyone's post if they were off topic. Nor did I go beyond that point--it was mainly RoE suggestions after that, and I'm kind of tired. 33. God - 9/17/1999 7:31:02 PM Wabbit
You said that already, Sweetheart.
==):-) 34. CalGal - 9/17/1999 7:31:13 PM Ace,
Sorry. I should have. I'm just tired and I hate copying posts anyway. 35. wabbit - 9/17/1999 7:32:04 PM sheesh, duplicate post #30 (mine) is also deleted. 36. God - 9/17/1999 7:34:41 PM 1022. God - 9/18/99 3:49:26 AM
pelle
wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong, but thanks for coming out.
The decision was correct, letting Cal dictate 'handle policy' would have been a horrible precedent and even Ace eventually conceded that my handle was borderline and not worth all the fuss.
The vote idea was also a good idea. JJ made it clear he considered it a close decision and put the matter up for discussion. As a result, the best decision was reached (not based on a vote, but presumably based on JJ's further analysis, aided no doubt in part by the posts on the issue).
This 'special' thread was by far the most popular thread here, and the first to break the Millennial. Of course we needed our own thread.
If the losers had been as gracious as the winners (I did not gloat one iota and extended an olive branch to my adversaries, which was slapped away) there would have been no meltdown.
I understand that Europeans don't have the same love of free speech as we do on this side of the atlantic, get used to it.
37. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 7:35:09 PM
Proposed RoE statement:
Revealing an anonymous poster's real-name, or the address or other confidential information about any poster, constitutes the most serious violation of the Rules of Engagement. Revealing such information is grounds for immediate, lengthy suspensions or permanent bannings; in the case of deliberate and malicious revelations, or repeated inadvertant, non-malicious infractions, you WILL be permanently banned from the site.
Note: Ciphers and "hints" about such information is considered to be a revelation, and subject to the same penalties. Revealing such information on another Forum is alsogrounds for permanent banning. 38. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 7:36:26 PM
Jesus.
I can't believe it.
I've run into someone more immature than me. 39. God - 9/17/1999 7:39:05 PM 1029. God - 9/18/99 4:07:15 AM
'I'm not trying to hold back progress. I'm just trying to slow things down.'
Hmmm. Anybody else know what the hell she's saying?
1031. God - 9/18/99 4:15:18 AM
Incidentally, I find the ostensible excuse to ban my moniker (to avoid offending newbies) pretty pathetic coming from someone who envisions 5-10 new Moties PER YEAR.
And I'm also tired of people impugning my motives for choosing this handle. It was this sort of mind-reading that caused the meltdown in the first place.
1032. God - 9/18/99 4:17:06 AM
I've also conceded that there is a de facto ruling clique around here, for the most part, they behave like one. Those few 'rebels' who think they can run the show and still prance around, mouthing off like idiots are the ones who will have to choose one or the other.
1058. God - 9/18/99 5:30:45 AM
Nope. CalGal has made it VERY clear that the RoE ONLY apply to the Mote and that anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. I can find the pertinent post in the playpen for you if you like.
1074. God - 9/18/99 5:42:59 AM
Ace
What are you, deaf, must I quote my favorite person on the planet, the most valuable contributor to this forum, and my personal hero, Cal Gal, very well:
CG
God,
No, all we have to do is ban mention of personal information in this forum. Which we do, in the RoE.
Me
Cal
So I can email the information to whoever I want, I just can't type it in here? And it doesn't matter if the person I'm talking about is a Motie or not? Interesting policy.
CG
What are you, an idiot? All that matters to The Mote is what information is displayed within its "walls". 40. God - 9/17/1999 7:45:22 PM Way to kill a reasonably enjoyable (if unproductive) discussion. Night all.
==):-) 41. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 7:52:51 PM
Revised, proposed RoE statement:
Revealing an anonymous poster's real-name, or the address or other confidential information (sexual history, state of health, etc.) about any poster, constitutes the most serious violation of the Rules of Engagement. Deliberately, knowingly revealing such information will result in immediate, lengthy suspensions or permanent bannings, depending on the sensitivity of the information revealed. Even inadvertant, non-malicious revelations may be cause for banning, if the violations are repeated.
Note: Ciphers, codes, word-games, rhymes, and "hints" about such information is considered to be a revelation, and subject to the same penalties. Revealing such information on another Forum or web-site is also grounds for permanent banning. 42. God - 9/17/1999 7:59:46 PM You could start by spelling inadvertent correctly, Dillweed.
Night, Shooter.
==):-) 43. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 8:14:01 PM
Notes to Jay:
The above form of the proposed rules is pretty simple. I'm not sure how much simpler they could be and still make it clear that God's various hypotheticals, and the earlier violations, are off-limits.
You may object to the penalties I suggest. Yes, they are harsh. If that's your objection, please say so.
In support of harsh penalties, I would argue that we are only talking about the stiffest penalties for deliberate revelations of the most sensitive information (name, address). Since such a penalty will only be imposed in DELIBERATE cases, and people will be forewarned of this, what's your objection, precisely, to imposing such a penalty?
Posters have, after all, the power to NOT post such information. Their victims, however, must live with the consequences of what a violator has done. I, for one, see no problem imposing such a tough penatly on what is the worst offense you can commit on-line.
44. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 8:14:28 PM
I understand that those posting under their real names don't think this is a big deal. Fine. I understand that. But step out of your shoes and into others' shoes. Christin, VonKreedon, me, Cal, and others all wish to retain our anonymity. Is it such a blow to free expression (or whatever theory you base your recalcitrance on) to impose harsh penalties on those who reveal the identities of anonymous posters? Would you like it if someone posted your parents' names and addresses, or your home and business telephone numbers, on-line?
What if you were a closeted gay and someone outed you publicly? (Combine that with publishing your real name.)
You may say anybody can get that information. Perhaps so. But the fact that there are some people who will go through the trouble of digging up private information on you is hardly a reason not to punish the open publication of such information on-line.
Once again, if we make it clear that this is the most serious violation possible (and, of course, threats are fairly implausible UNLESS people have made your private information available), what is the objection to just telling people, don't do it, or you will be banned from three months (lesser violation) to permanently (full name, and/or address etc.)?
I suggest that the publication of such information on-line makes its victims very uncomfortable. CalGal has a lot of enemies, and now she has to worry that someone might look her up. Likely? Not particularly. But why should she "just deal" with that worry?
If the posters of such information do so-- as I suggest-- to permanently decrease someone's sense of security, what is the problem, exactly, with permanently revoking their posting privileges?
45. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 8:14:39 PM
Note I mean this all pro-actively. I still submit that what has gone before should be punished severely, but one can agree with these rules and yet still insist, if one wants, that previous infractions should be let go by the wayside. Please don't let your feelings about a past infraction keep you from acceeding to rules for future conduct. 46. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 8:24:22 PM
And let us consider the penalty scale:
We've talked about temporary suspensions for abusive behavior and what not. Two days, five days, a month, permanent.
Such light penalties may make sense when we're talking about people using the word "motherfucker" too many times in a civil thread or whatnot. No one suffers any permanent harm from being called a "douchebag." (If you want to call this self-serving, fine; increase THESE penalties too if you like.) The harm (disruption of the discussion) is temporary, "healable," and, if I may say, fairly trivial.
Revealing someone's personal information on-line is NOT TEMPORARY. It cannot be "healed." Once that information is out there, it is OUT THERE forever. And it is not trivial.
So, to me at least, it seems ridiculous to penalize these sorts of offenses on the same scale that you're going to penalize spamming or abusive language on. I submit that a one-week or two-week suspension is just fine for me if I go off into a Tourettes' tornado and ruin everybody's discussion one night. The penalty (two weeks) fits the violation (one night of ruined discussion).
It does not make sense to penalize someone for a week-- a week!-- for PERMANENTLY outing information someone intended to keep private.
Ban Ace for two weeks, and you've got your civil forum back. But where, exactly, does CalGal go to get her anonymity back? Can you give it back to her? I know that dozens of people copied the post before Res (belatedly) deleted it. That cute code is out there for good. 47. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 8:27:52 PM
Once again, please excuse the reference to CalGal. I do not mean to conflate past violations with future policy; I use her only as a concrete example of what I'm talking about.
There is nothing inconsistent with enacting these rules proactively and treating past violations differently. You know my opinion on that score; but you are free to hold another. 48. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 8:32:55 PM
And suffice to say: In the case of revealing information, it makes no sense to issue a "warning" first. There is no need for a warning.
When two people are arguing, it may be the case that someone doesn't know when they've stepped over a subjective line, and in that case it may make sense to issue a warning (except in really serious cases, where immediate action may be taken).
No one needs a "warning" to know that revealing personal information is wrong. This is not "subjective" or a matter of taste or one's boundaries for civility. We ALL KNOW you're not allowed to do it.
So what is the purpose of begining with a warning? To warn someone not to do something they already knew they weren't supposed to do? To give them "one free bite at the apple"? What?
|
 |
Go To Mote #
|
|
