|
657. CalGal - 2/15/2000 11:25:10 PM Angel,
Secondly, more people know her identity and personal data now, and did back in the Fray, than would have ever known it had she not bothered to try and protect it in the first place and instead chosen to be as open as I have.
This suggests that you still don't know my reasons for keeping information offline.
Angel, more people know my name than know yours for two reasons: 1) I probably email more people than you do and 2) I'm more notorious than most, so more people dislike me and make a point of getting my name, thinking that this bothers me. If I understand you correctly, you assume that my reason for not being open with my name online has to do with attempts to prevent those in category 2 from getting the information they want.
No.
I'll try an analogy:
Suppose I hang out regularly at a bar IRL. I know all the regulars, I like a lot of them, a few of them can't stand me. There are also a lot of people I don't know at all. Most of the regulars know my name, because I have told them my name. Some of the regulars don't know my name--although they know me as the chick with the loud voice and the yen for Wild Turkey--but they could get my name if they needed to, just by checking with a regular who does know it.
But I don't put my name and phone number on a little card and post it on the bulletin board. I don't announce my name in such a way that anyone in the vicinity can hear it, given I don't know who hangs out at the bar and don't feel like letting someone collect names for Jehovah's Witness meeting, a telemarketing campaign, or for his next gruesome murder scheduled for Tuesday at 1.
658. CalGal - 2/15/2000 11:47:37 PM That's why I don't put my name online. Not for any of the assholes I know. But because of the audience I don't know. Will some of them get my name anyway? Probably. But I see no reason to make it easy for them. I see this as purely sensible safety precaution. "Safety" in the psycho stalkers and telemarketing sense, not the kind that goes along with whether or not assholes I don't like know my name. That's no more avoidable online than it is IRL.
659. CalGal - 2/15/2000 11:53:25 PM Now. I provided a description of my reasoning for my privacy only because you keep misstating it. But that can mislead you into thinking that if you can prove my preferences to be misplaced, you can change my mind. No.
Your analysis of the reasons for privacy is irrelevant to your case. The forum doesn't have to care why people want to remain private. All it has to do is determine whether or not they will support the privacy. We can't go around determining the individual reasons, since there might be as many reasons as there are members. More members might change the reasons. No, this is something that can be abstracted out to a binary issue: privacy, yes or no?
At that point, it becomes simple: which approach benefits the forum?
If you want the transparency made mandatory, make a simple case: it will improve the quality of the forum in such a compelling fashion that the desires of any individual member are irrelevant.
You haven't even really stated your argument as to why it would benefit the forum, much less tried to convince anyone else. Instead, you've been trying to attack reasons--figuring if you can make the reasons go away, you can make the rule go away.
You could successfully deconstruct every reason for privacy into nonsense (which you haven't, mind you, but I'm just allowing for that possibility) and it would have no effect on my support for a privacy policy.
Why? Because the reason I support privacy has nothing to do with my own preferences. The reason I support privacy is because I feel that this forum is better off for it. I know all the arguments for transparency, and none of them are compelling enough to require transparency instead of allowing it.
It is really that simple, as far as I'm concerned. 660. Angel-Five - 2/16/2000 4:11:37 AM Jay: I'm mulling it over, though for me the benefits are in a community change more than in a lone-wolf change. Besides, I'm rather taken with Angel-Five after all these years. CalGal Where have I mischaracterized your reasons for anonymity in this debate? Can you refresh my memory? Because the only thing I remember saying is that you wanted your privacy protected, not why. And all your statements which hinge upon my supposed mischaracterization and attack of your need for privacy are therefore bogus. I know why you want your privacy protected, because you've brought it up before -- you don't want to blindly advertise your personal information to people you don't know at all. You've also inferred that you might not want your employer to link your opinions to your real life identity. I'd guess that you also just don't want your name next to some of the things you say, but if you claim that's absolutely not the case, fine. Your point about the forum not having to care why people want to be private is, I'm afraid, specious. Every rule that's gone into this forum so far demonstrates a concern with intent as well as action. And people have no means of determining whether or not they'd like privacy rules without first envisioning what those rules might engender. Furthermore, I have never once spoken of forcing transparency, so the bit about 'making a case that outweighs any individual's desires to the contrary' doesn't apply here. I've lost track of the number of times I've said it now -- it's pointless to try unless a strong majority want to try. What I have done is give two good reasons why people might want to try transparency -- fewer barriers to understanding communication, and a better signal to noise ratio. 661. CalGal - 2/16/2000 5:02:07 AM Where have I mischaracterized your reasons for anonymity in this debate?
Here:
Secondly, more people know her identity and personal data now, and did back in the Fray, than would have ever known it had she not bothered to try and protect it in the first place and instead chosen to be as open as I have.
and here:
This is precisely because of the fact that she's so visibly fought to protect the privacy of her own data.
Incidentally, that last is untrue. The reason that people post the information is because they don't like me personally. Many other people could have been extremely adamant about their personal information and it wouldn't have gotten the same response. Were someone to post Wabbit's picture online, she would ask that it be removed immediatly. I doubt that anyone would continue to post it in another forum just to bother her. That is because Wabbit is a good and gentle soul, and I'm disliked. I'm not complaining, but let's not confuse the issue.
BTW, I didn't say that you mischaracterized it. I said that you seemed not to understand it. I said that because of this comment, here:
Some people find the 'anonymity' of the Mote to be pleasant and useful.
And I am not the most visible proponent of privacy. That would be Ace. There are also many people here who sensibly refrain from stating their opinions on privacy because it gets the attention of punks who then will post it just to bother them.
You've also inferred that you might not want your employer to link your opinions to your real life identity.
No, I did not. I said that I find it reasonable that people might not want them linked. I am self-employed, and anyone I've ever worked with knows my political views and know I post at this forum.
662. CalGal - 2/16/2000 5:02:36 AM Your point about the forum not having to care why people want to be private is, I'm afraid, specious.
No, it isn't. It is entirely relevant. The forum doesn't have to care why people want to be private. They can make it as abstract an issue as they like. And right now, like it or not, it's at the level of privacy or no privacy. There is no real debate over whether or not its reasonable to want privacy. You and Jay are welcome to try and change the debate, but let's not pretend that you can set the terms. The forum as a whole sets the terms, and it's pretty clear the forum as a whole values privacy. I certainly think it safe to say that the forum as a whole will refuse to require transparency.
Furthermore, I have never once spoken of forcing transparency
Must be a misunderstanding. Why have this discussion, if you don't think it should be forced? Do as Jay said, change your own name, and be done with it. Otherwise, make the case for requiring it.
663. Angel-Five - 2/16/2000 2:41:42 PM No, CalGal, you're still missing it. We didn't just up and decide on a whim in the Fray about privacy and blackmail, just because people wanted it. We analyzed why, and what could come of it. There was a very specific thing that happened, we all remember it, it scared more than one person (needlessly, I might add) and that's the root. All the privacy arguments since in the Mote have centered on intent, mitigation, and justification as regards the use of personal information, and the punishment due for using that information in a specific infraction. That necessarily leads back to the question of when someone in the Mote can reasonably expect to have his or her personal information protected from 'inadvertent' first slips, like mentioning what someone's husband does for a living. Because absolute privacy is not supported by the Mote rules in and of itself, but instead limited privacy is granted to Motiers based on some system of mitigation. So we have to construct some big rigamarole argument (remember those multipost legalistic documents Ace was writing?) saying what could be said by who and why. And that is ENTIRELY about whether an 'aggrieved' party has the right to expect the enforcement of privacy in any particular instance. So don't tell me about there's no debate in the Mote about whether it's reasonable to want privacy, because there is -- and since privacy in the Mote must be justifiable under Mote rules, it's legitimate to question that justification. 664. Angel-Five - 2/16/2000 2:47:58 PM AS to the email thing -- yes, Radio Free CalGal was what we called it for a while, it got forwarded around some. You have a point WRT name recognition there, certainly. But I don't think you can fairly compare yourself and Wabbit (who did post a picture of herself unless I'm much mistaken) because I've never seen Wabbit post the way you do about privacy, at all. She might be as personally adamant about it, but she's nowhere near as vocal as you are. And that's what attracts attention. Do you think Klyce would have ever posted what he posted if you weren't vocal about your identity? 665. Angel-Five - 2/16/2000 2:49:20 PM vocal about your privacy, that is. 666. Angel-Five - 2/16/2000 3:12:12 PM Gotta do this. 667. Angel-Five - 2/16/2000 3:28:42 PM Let me put it like this; although I've never done the large scale emailing you do, I've emailed a lot of people in this forum at one time or another; whether or not my emails have ever been forwarded by the intended recipients, I don't know, but one way or another schloads of people have gotten my name from my email address (it's my sig file). And while I'd imagine you have some edge in the personal dislike sweeps, I know that I've raised the ire of a few folks myself. So why is it that you have had personal information and personal things printed against your will several times now, while no one has ever threatened to do it to me that I can recall? 668. CalGal - 2/17/2000 1:52:13 AM Angel,
I don't wish to revisit old history; it has nothing to do with this. Worse, you are incorrectly stating old history, but if I correct you I play into your game.
So I'm not going to correct the inaccuracies, but move to the meta-point. Your entire premise is flawed. You are trying to portray a desire for privacy as a nice dangling carrot for people to use as a weapon. And you are using my experiences as an example to bolster your case.
Even if you were correct about my desire for privacy (and you are not), you can't prove anything by me.
Why?
Because I am a special case. Yes, people dislike you. Some people dislike you a lot. But in general, people don't dislike you enough to bother. You're not worth it, apparently.
Me, for whatever reason--I'm worth it. The CalGal Syndrome has been noted by many--most recently PseudoErasmus and JoeZan (whose mullings about a potential boyfriend named Guido remains my favorite analysis) and it causes otherwise sane and rational people to act like obsessed psychopaths. Some of those people cross the line from ranting about me online and in email to getting information and doing what they can to bother me, on the grounds that I deserve it. No doubt I do. A few people have gotten banned for revealing information about me--and the spooky thing is, I'm sure they think it was worth it. That's fixation, baby. You can't buy that kind of dedication, and it ain't garden variety dislike.
So there isn't much point in comparing you and me--or, in fact, me to anyone else when it comes to "dislike". We just aren't in the same league.
669. CalGal - 2/17/2000 1:55:56 AM In short, the use of privacy against me is nothing more than a symptom of the degree to which people despise me. They'd use any other rule that came to hand as well, or in fact any not a root cause of a problem with the privacy rules. If you can only make your case with me, you've got no case.
And, as I've already said, even if you did have a case, it would only be the case as to why you don't think privacy is important. You don't have a case for removing privacy as a means of benefitting the forum. And that's really the only case that matters.
So I won't be responding to any more posts about why you think the need for privacy is illogical, nor am I going to respond to your posts about why you think I'm plagued. As I said, you've been wrong far more than right.
But I'll be interested in reading any case you have for it benefitting the forum as a whole. And I'll let you know up front that the occasional policy debate or fracas due to exposure isn't something I consider a pain, so you'll have to come up with a pretty big benefit to offset it. 670. Angel-Five - 2/17/2000 7:12:32 AM What old history am I wrong about? I'm not, but if you don't want to engage on it, it's fine with me. I only brought it up to illustrate a point, and that point has been illustrated -- and it IS old history. And we don't have to engage over whether this CalGal syndrome is as one sided as you portray it, because, well, both sides have worked that argument pretty well and no one ever proves much. But the usage justification and defensibility of privacy in this forum is very much a point of debate, and your bizarre insistence that it is not bewilders me. How else can we draw comparison between the results and the influences of privacy and transparency? And we might as well get something straight: I'm not out to convince you, CalGal, of anything. Your mind is already made up and you've staked a lot of yourself on the privacy rules. It would be wonderful if you decided to come around, but you will not, and to be honest that doesn't matter at all to me. You jump into the discussion as per usual, announcing that you've already made up your mind, and then you tell me that I have to convince you? Why on earth would I bother? The purpose of having a dialogue on transparency, as I stated clearly at the beginning and as you've apparently chosen to conveniently misunderstand twice now, is to let people read and decide for themselves -- to at least make decisions that are more informed than if they hadn't read about it at all. Not to 'force' anyone to a decision, as you've tried to infer twice now. Not to fool people into defending transparency. Not to do anything but slowly raise the consciousness about the transparent option. It takes a lot of courage for a whole group to be willing to make that step together, and it will probably not happen in the Mote anytime soon. Yet if any small community I know of can make the step, despite your campaigning and specious arguments against it, it's here. 671. CalGal - 2/17/2000 7:51:50 AM Your mind is already made up and you've staked a lot of yourself on the privacy rules.
Not at all. I would leave if the decision were made to do away with them at this point in time, but I'm not particularly concerned about that possibility. However, times and norms change. I don't see them changing that much, but you never know.
I do note your continuing attempts to describe my motives and frame of mind. Whatever jerks your chain, I suppose.
I'm not out to convince you, CalGal, of anything.
I never thought you were. You are out to convince others. I'm out to ensure that the debate isn't framed incorrectly.
And we don't have to engage over whether this CalGal syndrome is as one sided as you portray it,
You're quite right. We don't. Mainly because I would never be so foolish as to debate such nonsense. It is irrelevant to my point whether or not it is onesided, so I didn't even bring it up. Read again, and note that the only thing I said was that I was hated, and that no doubt I deserve whatever I get.
672. Angel-Five - 2/17/2000 8:27:12 AM
(me)Your mind is already made up and you've staked a lot of yourself on the privacy rules.
(you)Not at all. I would leave if the decision were made to do away with them at this point in time, but I'm notparticularly concerned about that possibility. However, times and norms change. I don't see them changing that much, but you never know.
I do note your continuing attempts to describe my motives and frame of mind. Whatever jerks your chain, I suppose. Whatever do you mean 'not at all'? When your very next sentence is that you'd leave if someone ever decided to do away with the privacy laws? Please, that doesn't make sense. As for your mind not being made up, please, compared to The reason I support privacy is because I feel that this forum is better off for it. I know all the arguments for transparency, and none of them are compelling enough to require transparency instead of allowing it.
It is really that simple, as far as I'm concerned. we have a really big contradiction. I'm not characterizing your frame of mind and your motives, CalGal; I'm saying what you yourself say, at least part of the time. (me)I'm not out to convince you, CalGal, of anything.
(you)I never thought you were. You are out to convince
others. Then why should I present a case tailored specifically to you, as you ask, when you say But I'll be interested in reading any case you have for it benefitting the forum as a whole. And I'll let you know up front that the occasional policy debate or fracas due to exposure isn't something I consider a pain, so you'll have to come up with a pretty big benefit to offset it. 673. CalGal - 2/17/2000 8:37:36 AM But the usage justification and defensibility of privacy in this forum is very much a point of debate, and your bizarre insistence that it is not bewilders me.
I'm not surprised it bewilders you. But that's how it goes.
The RoE is not a constitution. It is a set of rules that we all put in place because the consensus of the forum is that these rules make the forum a better place. You want to change a rule, you really do need to start there.
How else can we draw comparison between the results and the influences of privacy and transparency?
Who says we need to compare them? As far as I'm concerned, you only need to compare them if you wish to argue that a transparent forum would be a better place. Then you can set up the criteria. But you are starting from the premise that the privacy rule is causing a problem that requires fixing. I think you should state the problem, state how it's hurting the forum, and state how this problem could be fixed by removing the rule. At that point, people can discuss the advantages of privacy in comparison to the benefits of transparency vis a vis its impact on the forum.
Then, if enough people decide "wow, Angel's right! The forum might be a better place if we were all transparent! But before we make up our mind, we should think about the rationale for privacy. Why do people want privacy? What are the advantages?"
And then you could go ahead and analyze the reasons, pro and con.
It is much easier, of course, to ask people to justify a rule, then analyze their reasons. If you can make the reasons disappear or seem irrelevant, it can often fool people into thinking you've made the case for the change itself.
Unless you run into someone who doesn't fall for that approach, and requests a justification for considering changing the rule in the first place. 674. CalGal - 2/17/2000 8:43:11 AM The purpose of having a dialogue on transparency, as I stated clearly at the beginning and as you've apparently chosen to conveniently misunderstand twice now, is to let people read and decide for themselves
No, I haven't tried to misunderstand it. The dialogue on transparency is nothing more than a debate over a rule change. You wish to let people read and decide for themselves. I support you in your effort.
But just as you want people to read and decide, I want to remind people that we have the rules for a reason, and the reasons are because we like it that way and we think the forum is better off for the rules. I want to remind them that the betterment of the forum is a perfectly valid reason for having rules, and that we don't have to justify the rationale behind any rule other than saying, "We think it works best that way." And that anyone who wants to change a rule, or debate a change in rules, should start from that premise and demonstrate how a change will make the forum better. 675. CalGal - 2/17/2000 8:57:37 AM When your very next sentence is that you'd leave if someone ever decided to do away with the privacy laws?
You said I have "staked a lot of myself" in the privacy rules. Perhaps we have a different definition of "staked a lot of myself". I assumed, based on context, that you meant I was personally vested in the privacy rules, that I would take it as a personal defeat if they were changed. I am not and I do not. If a majority of people here wanted to be open and transparent, I would wish them well. I would not try to prevent the change--as if I could. But I would not stay, since I don't feel it is safe. I do not consider that to be "staking a lot of myself" in the privacy rules, but rather my own determination of what is best for me.
You also made it sound unique, which also supported the interpretation of "staked a lot of myself" that I describe. But there are many people here who would leave if they were required to use their real names, or if any of their private information could be revealed without any problems. You are saying that these people, too, have staked a lot of themselves on the privacy rules?
Then why should I present a case tailored specifically to you, as you ask, when you say
Again, I see no demand for a specifically tailored case. I said that if you continued to make the argument about me, I wouldn't respond. But if you wanted to make the case for an improved forum, I'd be interested. If you had no desire to make the case, then you of course don't have to. I see nothing in there that implies a demand for you to convince me, an assumption of your goals, or anything else. Merely a statement of interest and intent. You get to be Mr. Phelps and choose whether or not to accept it.
676. Angel-Five - 2/17/2000 9:59:31 AM I'm not the one who made the argument about you, CalGal. You did, which I'm sure is shocking to all. All I did was use you as an example, and I used you correctly for that example. I pointed you out as someone who was vocally in support of privacy who tried to restrict their private information and who had had much less success than other people who had never visibly bothered in the first place. You answered with a quibble that was completely unrelated to the thrust of the point (that I'd misunderstood your reasons for wanting privacy) and a fallacious retort (that people outed you because they despised you, even though lots of unliked people here never get outed). Then after the several posts in which you yourself use yourself as an example, suddenly you don't want the argument to be about yourself anymore.It never was, until you made it so. The RoE is not a constitution. It is a set of rules that we all put in place because the consensus of the forum is that these rules make the forum a better place. You want to change a rule, you really do need to start there. What's this 'we' and 'you' crap? Who drafted the ROE? Who implemented the ROE? Who says we need to compare them? As far as I'm concerned, you only need to compare them if you wish to argue that a transparent forum would be a better place. Then you can set up the criteria. Yes, of course. Why then did you just say that the influences and results of privacy, indeed, anything at all about privacy, is unimportant? Your analysis of the reasons for privacy is irrelevant to
your case. The forum doesn't have to care why people
want to remain private. Remember? You were so bizarrely insistent on that point that I hit it several times -- we don't just decide we want it or we don't, we decide based upon the causes and effects and our observations and deductions of those causes and effects become our reasons.
|
