|
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. 677. Angel-Five - 2/17/2000 9:59:41 AM Every rule we've considered in this forum so far has been debated in those terms. And now suddenly you've come around? But you are starting from the premise that the privacy rule is causing a problem that requires fixing. Not at all. You're mistaking an introductory, related point for a starting premise. 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. I rest my case and you prove my point. We should either think about the rationale for privacy or we should not thing about the rationale for privacy, CalGal; make up your mind, because we can't do both and yet that's what you're advocating. 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. Why, exactly, should anyone follow any rule that no one can give a defensible reason for? No, wait, I'll rephrase that. Why exactly should anyone expect others to follow any rule that no one can give a defensible reason for? If there's no reason to expect others to follow the rule, then, well, hell. Why should anyone follow it, much less order others to on the pain of banning et cetera? 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. That's good. Glad you've grasped that. But just a short while ago you said (me)Furthermore, I have never once spoken of forcing transparency
(you)Must be a misunderstanding. Why have this discussion, if you don't think it should be forced? . Nuff said, I trust. Your positions in this matter migrate a great deal -- if you're going to sustain an argument, you ought to sustain your position. 678. CalGal - 2/17/2000 10:46:03 AM What's this 'we' and 'you' crap?
We = The Mote.
You = anyone who wants to change policy.
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.
Yes, that's what I understood you to say. And this is incorrect.
As for the rest, your translations defy credibility and I've got better things to do. I think you got the point--and if you didn't, anyone reading will. So we'll see what happens next.
679. Angel-Five - 2/17/2000 11:29:01 AM What point? You say I don't give any reasons for transparency, when I have (and if you still insist not, CalGal, I'll tell you what: I'll bet you twelve days of my silence on this forum against twelve days of yours that I have, and if you'll take that bet, I'll be happy to point them all out -- otherwise, I believe, you should cease going on about how I don't give positive reasons for transparency). You say first that there's no reason to argue about the rationales and reasons for privacy, and then you change your mind and say that those rationales and reasons should be examined. You claim that you understand the reason I bring up the point, then show you haven't, then claim you have all along. So what is your point? That we should compare privacy with transparency? No joke. If you'll look back, that's how this discussion started. That's mostly what's been happening, until you came in, claimed I didn't understand why you believed in privacy, talked about how all your troubles are because people despise you, and wrapped yourself up in the conversation.... never once acknowledging the simple fact that I used you as an example to prove -- the privacy rules do not work. The fact is simple: whether or not you're the most despised Motier, in quantity or quality of loathing generated, is irrelevant to the fact that the privacy rules demonstrably have not worked in your case. 680. Angel-Five - 2/17/2000 11:30:37 AM And you can talk about people like Wabbit who don't get trespassed against because they're well liked, but somehow you manage to miss the obvious correlation to those statements: there's no need for us to have a privacy rule to protect the people who aren't going to get outed anyway! The only reason we have any need to have a privacy rule is to protect the people who are disliked enough that people will out them for revenge, and if that privacy rule isn't going to protect them, then there's no need for it to be on the books at all. Especially when it means that someone can be banned or suspended for a simple slip of the fingers. It's important to remember that the privacy rule isn't a harmless thing. 681. Angel-Five - 2/17/2000 12:20:52 PM 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. What's 'incorrect' about that, CalGal? That you're vocally in support of privacy? That you have tried to restrict your personal information? That you've had much less success at that than other people who have never visibly bothered to restrict their information? All of these are things that you have acknowledged already. There's nothing funky about their union. 682. Angel-Five - 2/17/2000 2:49:38 PM BTW: In retrospect, using you as an example might not have been the most tactful thing in the world for me to do. I also don't suppose I needed to comment on 'making yourself the center of debate', because that's incidental to the discussion. I think that discussion between the two of us is liable enough to generate heat without me spiking it, and I'd really like the discussion of transparency to be something other people are comfortable to participate in. So I'm sorry if any of my commentary indirectly heated your temper -- whether or not it bothered you. Given that your main point -- that transparency and privacy should be analyzed together if one wants to choose wisely and fairly between one and the other -- is one that's already in evidence, did you have any further objection? 683. Seguine - 2/20/2000 6:10:35 AM A-5: "The only reason we have any need to have a privacy rule is to protect the people who are disliked enough that people will out them for revenge, and if that privacy rule isn't going to protect them, then there's no need for it to be on the books at all."
I almost agree with this, but a) absent some such rule I do think women may perceive themselves to be at some disadvantage and b) my take on the RoE topic has always been somewhat different anyway.
Sometimes the intent of a rule is not to prevent a particular outcome but to signal the inadvisability of certain behavior for any number of valid but unspecified reasons. I think the no-outing rule need not protect anyone's identity in order to be valid. But that leaves A-5's implicit question: Well then, what is the point(s) of the rule?
684. Seguine - 2/20/2000 6:11:34 AM I have advocated privately for a different set of rules than the Mote is governed by currently. (I should add here, re Message # 678 that "We" manifestly does not include those animals that are less equal than others. I don't recall that "The Mote" ever voted on the RoE fait accompli.) The point of prohibiting outing and disclosures of personal information should have nothing to do with whether that kind of behavior does or doesn't result in actual injury, or whether identities can really be kept secret on the internet. It should have everything to do with the limits of incivility, which should be the fundament of the Mote's RoE.
It should be unacceptable for someone to insult or bait a person using personal information. For instance, in a recent argument with RPike I could conceivably have made ugly remarks about his wife's ethnicity (which he has disclosed), tied those remarks into his sense of aggrieved Judaism, etc. Had I done such a thing, the remarks ought to have been summarily deleted and I should have received a canned warning. Subsequent similar attacks ought to have merited a banning.
The same should go for disclosure of any other personal information not clearly put forth in the context in question by the person being discussed--and that should include RL ID, email or physical address, photographs, and so on. None of this stuff, even if it has been disclosed before, needs to be brought up in most discussions, and it should probably never be brought up in argument.
685. Seguine - 2/20/2000 6:12:04 AM In short, there should be no distinction between the existing Rule #1 (which is sophomorically written) and Rule #2 (which sounds like an invitation to transgression). As far as I know, the only reason there is a distinction at the moment is because CalGal thinks it essential to deem outing of identities more egregious than verbally asaulting people on the basis of what has been learned about them over time. I figure the latter is at least as bad for a forum; probably worse, as there are many forums that operate transparently, and many fewer that maintain an interesting level of conversation in the midst of raging, intimate flame wars.
Finally, lest someone object that my version of the Rules might depress a certain amount of creatively hostile levity, I submit that it will not. It should still be possible to lampoon handles, insult opponents' mental acuity in all sorts of ways, and generally behave imperfectly. Those who aren't up for all that might be advised that some days you rape the cossack; some days the cossack rapes you. 686. Seguine - 2/20/2000 6:22:54 AM Correction: I hadn't looked at the RoE lately and failed to see the revised version!
Rules 1-4 should all be compressed into one:
Do not make threats or use personal information to bait, insult, abuse, or put at risk other forum participants.
There should, I think, be few or no caveats; that is, it shouldn't matter whether the personal information had ever been disclosed "legitimately". And it should not matter whether the info is exploited (per the rule) in the Mote or elsewhere. 687. dusty - 2/20/2000 1:06:07 PM I'm not sure I know why we need to discuss thread host criteria. I think there are more pressing issues.
We did have a prior minor controversy over a thread host (Niner), but it was resolved easily. Other than that, I'm hard pressed to think of a situation other than the present one, where we've had any controversy over the selection of a host. (Yes, we did have a host "go bad", but that's a different issue).
As the lawyers say, "Hard cases make bad law". It would be better to debate the issue (if it needs debating) when we don't have a particular situation staring us in the face. Of course, like the guy who won't fix his leaking roof during the rain because it is raining, and won't fix it when the sun shines because it isn't leaking, if we wait till this incident blows over, we may never revisit the issue. (Which might illustrate that we don't need a general rule, we need a solution to a specific problem.)
Having said that, I think we are making far too much of the situation. A thread is not a scarce good. Giving a thread to Cazart doesn't mean someone else has to give it up. We aren't committing any special resources if the thread is assigned. In fact, I suggest that we are wasting more precious resources debating why Cazart shouldn't get a thread. Had we done it a few days ago, we'd probably know by now whether Cazart would do a decent job, or continue to screw up. And we would have wasted less time. 688. CalGal - 2/20/2000 2:14:36 PM As far as I know, the only reason there is a distinction at the moment is because CalGal thinks it essential to deem outing of identities more egregious than verbally asaulting people on the basis of what has been learned about them over time.
The reason there is a distinction is because the distinction existed at the Fray. While I support and agree with the distinction, it was not one that I instituted or demanded. It was a model that worked well there, and when we created this forum it was first tacitly and then explicitly agreed to use this model. Did everyone agree? No. A consensus was reached. Who determined that a consensus had been reached? You seem to think it was me. You might want to think again.
As far as "verbally assaulting" people with information that they've already made available on this forum, I'm not sure where Wabbit would make the call. Frankly, I think this would be unenforceable--which is what I believe was said by others (including me) the last time we had the debate.
I must say I wish I had all the power that some of you think I have. It'd be a great world. 689. CalGal - 2/20/2000 2:18:44 PM Ha, ha. You think that the Niner flap was a problem, but a host "going" bad wasn't? Please.
I'm not sure what you think is a more pressing issue, but I'm not claiming that this one is all that critical.
I've basically said my piece on it anyway. BTW, when I said "it's done", I was referring to the conversation with you. I really don't care how long the discussion itself goes on. 690. PelleNilsson - 2/20/2000 3:37:58 PM From time to time we have heated discussions on some aspect of policy. But underneath there is a basic loyalty to the forum. We want the Mote to be a good place. Cazart has no such loyalty. I'm quite sure he's out to do harm. To give him a thread may be the worst decision in the short history of the Mote. 691. JudithAtHome - 2/20/2000 10:38:51 PM I agree with Pelle...if someone came to my place of business and repeatedly trashed it and went next door and spoke negatively to all and sundry about me and my business, then came to me and asked for a job in my store, I would have no problems in saying "No, I don't think so!"
Dusty, your attitude is very admirable (give him a chance, etc.) but unfortunately, it is wasted on someone who is out to do harm to this place. Past actions speak louder than words. 692. JayAckroyd - 2/20/2000 10:58:27 PM I don't think this is a difficult case at all. The thread proposed is just plain silly. A thread about the discussion area at a single internet site, where the discussion area is so trivial that in a NYTimes magazine article about the site, that content is never mentioned? The obvious place to discuss such a discussion area is on the site itself. Think about it. Television and Movies; Physics, Economics, History; Arts and Music; and the Table Talk Forum at salon.com.?!?
Moreover, it is really just a ploy. If we put up the thread, we're ninnies. If we don't, we're exclusionary. It would have been a better ploy if it had been a good suggestion. 693. Seguine - 2/21/2000 12:00:36 AM "The reason there is a distinction is because the distinction existed at the Fray."
This is not the Fray. That is, it is not a commercial site run by third parties for their own purposes but a volunteer site run by participants for their own purposes. The Mote's purposes and the concerns of its participants have evolved away from those of the Fray--and they had done, as of the Mote's inception. There was never any particular reason to hew to Fray policy in particular.
"While I support and agree with the distinction, it was not one that I instituted or demanded. It was a model that worked well there, and when we created this forum it was first tacitly and then explicitly agreed to use this model."
On the contrary, you advocated quite vocally for continuing Fray policy, in almost the same words you're using now. Some people agreed with you. Others didn't. The position you advocated was the one adopted. Naturally, I'm not sure how "it was first tacitly and then explicitly agreed [that all-purpose passive voice at work!] to use this model". You'll have to forgive my assumption that the policy's most vocal proponent had something to do with its adoption, but given that decision making here is not exactly transparent, I don't see why I shouldn't conclude your opinion carries at least some of the weight you wish it did.
694. Seguine - 2/21/2000 12:01:04 AM "Did everyone agree? No. A consensus was reached. Who determined that a consensus had been reached? You seem to think it was me. You might want to think again."
I could think all day about it and come to only provisional conclusions. But my uneducated bet is that Wabbit shares your concerns about privacy (for very different reasons) and Alistair, who probably doesn't care one way or the other, needs Wabbit to consent to moderate this place, so you got to write (at least) the first version of the rules because they were close enough to what Wabbit agreed with and because you were eager to take on the task, in order to have some control of nature of this forum. Which you prefer allow for certain kinds of nastiness and not others. All of this does not suggest that "the Mote" made decisions about what the RoE should contain.
"As far as "verbally assaulting" people with information that they've already made available on this forum, I'm not sure where Wabbit would make the call. Frankly, I think this would be unenforceable..."
It's not unenforceable at all, and in fact Wabbit has made the call adroitly in several cases already. In fact, not only is the rule eminently enforceable, but violations of it tend to be obviously out of bounds by most anyone's lights.
|
