|
581. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/1/2000 1:27:34 AM Ace:
You seem to think that access to the Mote is more important than privacy.
Hahaha. Surely you realize I've been one of the most outspoken advocates of privacy concerns in our forum since early days at the old place. I was instrumental in getting the bosses there to agree to the privacy rule (which was at that time unique to online forums).
You either fail to see my point or intentionally avoid it. No sweat. I'm sure there are others who understand what I'm saying. 582. AceofSpades - 2/1/2000 1:32:45 AM
"You either fail to see my point or intentionally avoid it."
Your point? Your "point," Irv, was proving your position by merely restating it ("It's not our job... because it's a matter of principle").
You also don't want to ban people because it puts Wabbit on the "firing line." It also takes work, apparently, to the job (enforcing privacy) which you admit is necessary; you feel it requires much, much to work to extend the privacy rule to Table Talk.
If there are rhetorical fireworks somewhere I'm missing out on, please point me to them-- I like fireworks. 583. AceofSpades - 2/1/2000 1:36:48 AM
I, on the other hand, point out that a banning rule without the backdoor rule is a nullity, because idiots like Cellar and Cazart can simply out personal information at Table Talk, to the SAME PEOPLE WHO POST HERE ON THE MOTE, and Irv wants to reassure them that that's "Okay and unobjectionable and have fun, guys."
As I said earlier: We've passed a law against libel, with the exception that if it's printed on pink paper, it's not libel. And guess what color paper all libel will be printed on in the future?
Incidentally, Cellar's already duplicated his personal-outing violation HERE. 584. CalGal - 2/1/2000 1:37:28 AM Just shut the eff up, why don't you?
?????
You asked a policy question. This is the policy thread. I answered it because it was something that was discussed earlier.
The rest of your rant is pointless. Really, I don't care why you don't post here--although I think you're a wuss if you let anyone, yes, even me! keep you away.
You can't come into the policy thread, ask questions, and then selectively choose who answers. 585. AceofSpades - 2/1/2000 1:37:34 AM
So, you see, it really doesn't require more work-- the same assholes who will out personal information on TT will also do it here. Might as well catch them on their earliest offenses and be done with them. 586. CalGal - 2/1/2000 1:39:17 AM Ace, could you just discuss the issue without slashing and burning everyone?
And in the interest of doing the same, I apologize for calling Ad pompom fluff. 587. AceofSpades - 2/1/2000 1:42:16 AM
Slash and burn who? Irv?
Puh-leeze. He assured me I was "just missing his point," so I restated "his point" for him to show that I did not miss it at all, though it was so slight I might well have.
Cellar?
After what he just did, he deserves to be slashed and burned.
He won't be, of course. 588. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/1/2000 1:44:02 AM Ace:
Thanks for proving my point. If you say things like "you feel it requires much, much to work to extend the privacy rule to Table Talk. " then you have no idea what I'm saying.
I've never said or indicated anything of the sort. The amount of work involved is completely irrelevant.
I also have never said I disagree with banning.
In fact, everything you said in 582 is made up and bears no relation to the points I made.
Please continue. Just leave me out of it. 589. AceofSpades - 2/1/2000 1:50:50 AM Irv:
You said:
I never said any such thing. I oppose this silliness on the grounds of principle, not because it would be "hard to enforce." It is simply not our job to enforce our rules elsewhere on the web. Period.
I said: You had merely restated your conclusion as evidence ("It is silly because it is not our job").
You said:
Which brings up another point... who is going to do all this deleting and banning and re-banning? I know our current moderator isn't interested in doing it, and we don't even have a gatekeeper.
It isn't easy to find volunteers willing to spend time and effort on this site and willing to put themselves on the firing line to boot.
I said that you said: 1) That while you admit the need for banning (I did not claim that you opposed banning; I explicitly stated you supported banning), you thought extending the banning rule to TT was too much work ("who is going to do all this deleting and banning and re-banning?"); and 2) that this banning puts Wabbit on the "firing line."
Once again, if your "real points" are so craftilly hidden amidst these statements that my feeble intellect cannot grasp them, I'd appreciate it if you simplified things for me.
Seems to me I have re-stated your arguments, such as they are, faithfully. 590. AceofSpades - 2/1/2000 1:59:32 AM
What I gleaned from your argument was this:
"It is simply not our job to ban people for outing personal information on TT," even if NOT banning them for such backdoor outings defeats the very purpose of the privacy rule in the first place. Why? Because it's "not our job," and that's "a matter of principle."
Further, "who will do all this banning and re-banning?" This point, while fair, applies equally to ANY scheme in which banning is contemplated, and our current RoE does contemplate banning-- indeed, it promises it.
Lastly, bannings put "Wabbit on the firing line." This, I suppose, means that there will be lots of anger about bannings. Once again, this applies equally to banning Cellar for the violation he committed here. And, once again, you seem to believe that the "bad feelings" engendered by banning are preferrable to actually banning someone for outing personal information. That is, we should not actually ban people for outing personal information, for, while that's bad, the hurt feelings caused by banning are worse.
If this means something else, I cannot guess what it might be. Wabbit was put on the "firing line" for other outings of personal information; I do not see the distinction why it's okay to put her on the "firing line" for outings HERE but beyond the pale to put her on the "firing line" for violations just next door in the Mote Cafe.
591. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/1/2000 2:09:35 AM Ace:
Please re-read my original comment on the issue. I stated my points clearly there, and also stated that I would not get into a debate about it.
I have only posted to protest your misrepresenting my comments, which you continue to do.
For example, when I mentioned that this would increase the workload of the moderator, I never mentioned or implied any work involving TT. That was your creation, and bears no relation to my post.
Please just ignore my posts if you can't understand them. And please don't keep putting words and meanings I never said nor intended into your interpretation of my posts. 592. AceofSpades - 2/1/2000 2:20:33 AM
Jesus, you're annoying. Your posts say NOTHING at all, and then when I attempt to divine meaning from your pap, you insist over and over, "You're missing my point."
Irv, when you figure out what the hell your point is, get back to me.
Here's the nonsense I've seen so far:
"It is enough that we are responsible for what is posted on our site."
AND WHY IS THAT, IRV?
"We have clear Rules of Engagement for this site, and we can clearly monitor those rules. We shouldn't be in the business of telling people what they can do elsewhere on the web... the rules for other sites are made by those who run those sites."
Ah... we shouldn't enforce our rules at TT BECAUSE we shouldn't enforce our rules at TT. Conclusion restated as evidence. Again and again, over and over.
And Irv insists: But you're avoiding my point.
No, Irv, I get your point: We shouldn't do this BECAUSE we shouldn't do this, and that's a matter of principle, and you feel strongly about it.
593. AceofSpades - 2/1/2000 2:23:41 AM
And then you go on:
If we try and extend our rules elsewhere, two things will happen:
1) Someone will inadvertently post something at TT (as Cellar did, for example) or somewhere else, and find him/herself in trouble at the Mote. And then we'll have to make an exception for that person. Once we start making exceptions, the rule is useless. The rule, as it stands now, and as it is applied to posts in the Mote, is clear and without exceptions.
I already pointed out: 1) Cellar's outings are not inadvertant, nor are Cazart's, and 2) we ALREADY make an exception for accidental, inadvertant, non-malicious outings HERE. There is no reason to assume, as you apparently do, that we would enforce our rules MORE DRACONIALLY than we do here.
2) People who are intent on causing trouble will see how much they can get away with. They'll start posting elsewhere, just to break the rule. It's human nature. If there is no rule, there's nothing for them to stretch. If we don't make it a major issue, but quietly enforce our rules, the problem is manageable. If our rules only apply here, we can enforce them.
And I already pointed out: They are not "pushing the rules" at TT, because we enforce NO RULES at TT.
And the piece de resistance:
I don't think we need to start extending our rules beyond this site, and I am very much against doing so.
Yes, you said that. Fifteen times now. You think that because you think that and we shouldn't do it because we shouldn't do it.
I'm sorry, Delphic One, but I am unable to divine Great Wisdom amidst these strewn intestines. 594. Jenerator - 2/1/2000 2:27:34 AM CalGal,
I'm sorry this is happening to you. Some people are just cruel hearted and for no apparent reason. Btw, did you ever get the email I sent you regarding the photo? I sent it a loooooong time ago. 595. AceofSpades - 2/1/2000 2:30:04 AM
draconically? 596. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/1/2000 2:32:07 AM Ace:
Jesus, you're annoying.
My sentiments exactly.
My first post said everything I intend to say, and I said so at the time. The rest has been trying to get you to stop mischaracterizing my post.
Do me a favor and stop trying to tell me what I said. I know what I said. I also said I will not get into a debate over it, and that's what is annoying you. 597. AceofSpades - 2/1/2000 2:32:23 AM
"For example, when I mentioned that this would increase the workload of the moderator, I never mentioned or implied any work involving TT. That was your creation, and bears no relation to my post."
Oh... so in a discussion about extending privacy rules to TT, you mention "additional work for the moderator," and dunderhead that I am, I assume you mean the PROPOSAL UNDER DISCUSSION would cause more work for the moderator, when in fact you meant some IRRELEVANT, UNMENTIONED, UNKNOWN, UNDISCLOSED proposal would cause this additional workload.
Sorry I missed that one. But I'm a-kind-a fucked up in the head, you know? 598. AceofSpades - 2/1/2000 2:35:59 AM
"My first post said everything I intend to say, and I said so at the time."
And said so well: It's bad because it's bad, and furthermore, we shouldn't do it because heck, we really shouldn't do it.
"The rest has been trying to get you to stop mischaracterizing my post."
I haven't mischaracterized dick, Irv. Your posts have said nothing at all and I have pointed that out to you.
Here's my final take:
I support extending privacy protection to TT because it's good to extend privacy protection to TT. Furthermore, that's a matter of principle. 599. Cazart - 2/2/2000 1:27:42 AM Well, Wabbit?
<br>
<br>
<br>What's your (read: CalGal's/Jay's/et al) take on Ace's threats of violence?
<br>
<br>
<br> 600. soupisgoodfood - 2/2/2000 1:21:11 PM This is truly a paradise on earth.
|
