|
711. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/21/2000 2:12:34 AM Jay:
What carried the day is that we would lose a lot of people were we to adopt a tranparency policy, or eliminate the restrictions on posting personal info.
I think Seguine made some very good points above, worthy of further discussion, and she certainly isn't advocating undoing the restrictions on personal info. Her suggestions go further, into the sensitive area of personal abuse. I like the way she defines things, and I would support more restrictions on abuse, as it is definitely harmful to the forum, and adds nothing to the dialogue.
But every time I brought this up at the old place, I got shouted down, and I expect that to happen again. 712. dusty - 2/21/2000 2:13:11 AM PelleNilsson
We want the Mote to be a good place.
Agreed
Cazart has no such loyalty.
Agreed.
I'm quite sure he's out to do harm.
The odds are in your favor.
To give him a thread may be the worst decision in the short history of the Mote.
What harm will follow? It's bad enough that Cazart lies about this place in other forums. Cazart doesn't provide links to the lies, because there is no supporting evidence. (At least, none that survives a few seconds inspection.)
Turning down Cazart's request will create a precedent—the first time someone has volunteered to host a new thread, and we've turned it down. For the first time, Cazart will be able to make a claim about this place and link it into relevant factual evidence.
If this sounds like caving to pressure, it is the opposite. I think the thread will fail miserably. It will stand as proof that Cazart is all bluster and no content. And, if by some miracle, it doesn't fail miserably, then we've all gained.
Cazart sounds just like the little kid on the playground who has't been invited to play in the game, and decides to interrupt the game. Sometimes those kids will magically transform when invited in, other times they will continue to be disruptive. In the former case, good results ensue. In the latter, kick the kid out for screwing up. And if the disruption continues, one can legitimately say that the kid has had a chance. 713. CalGal - 2/21/2000 2:19:35 AM Irv,
Well, I'd always rather a policy. It's the wonk in me. But then, "the Moderator has final approval on thread hosts" sounds like a policy to me--and one I agree with.
Jay,
Ace and CG made a lot of noise, but that wasn't what carried the day.
I completely agree, although I'd like to point out that both sides "made a lot of noise". But I've never thought that my argument for privacy was the reason it was adopted. Rather, I thought it was the fact that most people didn't join in the debate, which indicates a comfort with the status quo. I just happened to be arguing for the status quo in that case.
714. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 2:21:22 AM I'm not looking for pats on the back here or anything but both Harper and I were involved in drafting the RoE. Harper had to leave town before they were finished but I passed on her ideas to CG along with my own and there were numerous e-mails back and forth between us and plenty of visits to the open forum where policy ideas were being hotly debated. Anyone who believes that CalGal acted alone is mistaken.
Forgive me or don't if I get irritated with the paranoid view that CalGal has dominated this forum. Anyone and everyone who volunteered to help in creating theMote was allowed to do so. People participated according to their time and abilities. Had we sat around and waited for those people who spend so much time whining about CalGal to get it together and do something we'd all be posting in TableTalk right now. 715. CalGal - 2/21/2000 2:30:21 AM I didn't mention you because I wasn't sure you wanted to be drafted in defense (Harper had mentioned it online). Thanks for chiming in, though. 716. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 2:32:29 AM I didn't think you were slighting me. Anyone who paid attention at the time was aware of the fact that both Harper and I were involved. Funny how the facts screw up a perfectly good conspiracy theory. 717. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 2:33:29 AM Okay, sorry. that was snotty of me. I'm cranky this morning. I will endeavor to be either helpful or silent. 718. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/21/2000 2:34:56 AM Cal:
Well, I'd always rather a policy. It's the wonk in me. But then, "the Moderator has final approval on thread hosts" sounds like a policy to me--and one I agree with.
Hey, what I presented above IS a policy, and one I think we could all live with. If there isn't any opposition, let's make it an addition to our policies. Now is the chance for all assembled to speak up. 719. CalGal - 2/21/2000 2:41:09 AM Hey, what I presented above IS a policy, and one I think we could all live with.
I realize I'm often unclear. But I'm agreeing with you. 720. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 2:42:54 AM It's got my vote. 721. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 2:54:09 AM I agree with Irv in theory about strengthening the rules covering abuse, but in practice I find that deletion and moving posts to the Inferno work well to keep discussions from devolving into full-blown meltdowns. Oh, and CalGal doesn't run this forum. Remember all the grief in the early days about that? 722. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/21/2000 2:59:42 AM A5:
I don't know how it could be done, or even if it's possible. But I thought the ideas Seguine raised deserved discussion. I would love to see a more civil Mote, but I don't really have a problem with the level of civility in general. It's much better than the old place.
I like to see differences of opinion, and I like to see good arguments and reasoned debate. And flaming throws all that out the window. When I think of the greatest debates I've read here and in the old place, they all involve mutual respect and a commitment to keeping to ideas rather than personalities. 723. Seguine - 2/21/2000 3:02:20 AM CalGal,
Note that I'm no longer interested in attempting to converse with you.
Christin, Jay, et al.,
My objection to the original RoE has not been that it prohibited violations of privacy but that it was poorly written and so allowed for certain kinds of loopholes while expressly closing others, thereby privileging one set of concerns (e.g., concerns about privacy of RL names) while deprioritizing others (concerns about privacy of other kinds of info, about attracting newcomers, about egregious abusiveness of various sorts, etc.).
As to who wrote the rules, I've said what my impression was. If it's incorrect, fine, but why should I or anyone else (and my impressions are as much a result of gossip as anything) not be absolutely certain of who wrote the rules, under what circumstances, and whether opposing views were duly considered? Moreover, why should anyone believe that a consortium of Harper, ChristinO, and ultimately CalGal--who according to Christin did indeed, finally, write the rules--truly took into account the diverse views of people like Irv, Jay, or A-5? Sounds like a partisan effort to me.
The way I see it, the RoE should have been written summarily, with input from any and all sources as they saw fit, by Alistair and/or Wabbit. Failing that, several competing and very succinct drafts should have been written by a disinterested designated writer after a STRUCTURED debate. A vote of the membership, with deciding power accorded the moderator, should have determined the outcome of the rules.
724. Seguine - 2/21/2000 3:02:53 AM I also think the RoE should be modifiable any time the moderator changes, and should, to accommodate changes in the membership, be open to ratification or ammendment periodically (every 12 months?); or whenever the moderator deems there to be a suitably pressing reason for a review (i.e., an emergency of some sort). Otherwise, existing rules should prevail and changing them should not be a matter of stirring up foment and gathering constituencies and so on.
725. CalGal - 2/21/2000 3:13:31 AM I don't really see any problem with the civility in this place. Yeah, things get ugly on occasion, but I think overall the level is far higher than at the Fray--at least that I recall.
I think the specific issue that Seguine raises is the use of information in one context (a debate or discussion) that was revealed in another (social interaction).
I've had this occur to me often, and pretty much figure it par for the course. In the two situations where I've been accused of it, I was genuinely surprised, and apologized.
I see no reason why repeated use of certain information couldn't be considered abusive, after the participant requested that it not be used. But if the information was available, I don't see how the first use could be considered a privacy violation. Subsequent use after a request can be deleted for abuse. I'm really not clear why that isn't enough.
I am not clear, though, if this ban is to go even further.
Suppose I regularly mention that I have a son in the Cafe, and in some other discussion a person insults me by saying that I'm a lousy mother (this happens reasonably often). Should this be considered off limits? The person shouldn't be able to refer to the fact that I'm a mom because I haven't mentioned it in that discussion and we must keep personal information out of debates?
That seems unworkable, unenforceable, and hell, I'm not sure I'd want it even if it were. 726. CalGal - 2/21/2000 3:29:06 AM Moreover, why should anyone believe that a consortium of Harper, ChristinO, and ultimately CalGal--who according to Christin did indeed, finally, write the rules--truly took into account the diverse views of people like Irv, Jay, or A-5? Sounds like a partisan effort to me.
The reason you should believe it is because the discussion took place in this thread. Please start at Message # 348 and continue. Anyone who wanted to participate could do so. Note the consent and involvement of Wabbit.
And next time, Seguine, try reading back first. 727. Seguine - 2/21/2000 3:33:16 AM Now that Calgal is addressing something substantive:
"Suppose I regularly mention that I have a son in the Cafe, and in some other discussion a person insults me by saying that I'm a lousy mother (this happens reasonably often). Should this be considered off limits?"
Why not? It's certainly puerile. Worthy of a Cazart or a Stone, whom everyone seems ready to ban.
"The person shouldn't be able to refer to the fact that I'm a mom because I haven't mentioned it in that discussion and we must keep personal information out of debates?"
No, the rule I enunciated was that personal info should not be used to harass or abuse. The moderator, of course, would have sole authority to determine whether such a violation occurred and what to do about it (i.e., which punitive sanctions to apply or not apply), but standard policy should be, as it is now de facto if not precisely de jure, to delete such remarks immediately. 728. Seguine - 2/21/2000 3:41:39 AM "I've had this occur to me often, and pretty much figure it par for the course. In the two situations where I've been accused of it, I was genuinely surprised, and apologized."
Perhaps you were surprised because you didn't know no better; or perhaps you were surprised because you didn't expect to get caught. Either way, an explicit rule would have lessened your shock. (As for your apologies, they were surely given about as much credence as you give mine.) 729. CalGal - 2/21/2000 3:45:20 AM No, I was surprised because the information was regularly referred to online, so I didn't consider it any more of a privacy violation than I would a reference to my son.
730. CalGal - 2/21/2000 3:46:25 AM No, the rule I enunciated was that personal info should not be used to harass or abuse.
Well, calling me a lousy mom is technically abusive, and that's what I was referring to. As such, I think it's unworkable and unenforceable.
|
