|
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. 731. SpenceMirrlees - 2/21/2000 4:08:56 AM Speaking of the existence of children doesn't seem very personal to me, and calling someone a lousy mother doesn't seem more abusive or personal than calling them an idiot. 732. Seguine - 2/21/2000 4:11:12 AM "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."
Yes, it's abusive, but abuse alone has never been taken seriously as an offense in this forum; abuse alone is tough to legislate against. Abuse that employs private info is, I think, recognized by almost everyone as being pretty clearly actionable.
Or perhaps not everyone. You claim that you have only been accused of violating this standard twice, but I can think of more than two instances. This, for example....
733. Seguine - 2/21/2000 4:14:11 AM Adrianne, msg 545 addressed to Wabbit:
Recently, some of my personal information was revealed here on The Mote - stuff I had revealed on another forum. The motive was pure malice, it couldn't have been inadvertant, coming as it did from out of the blue and appropos of absolutely nothing being discussed.
I went to the RoE because I remembered (I thought) that we had made this a no-no (bringing up personal information that had not been revealed ON THE MOTE without express permission). I see that I misremembered, that that policy was not adopted.
I'd like to see that issue addressed again, iffen we're going to have another round of adjustments to the RoE.
734. Seguine - 2/21/2000 4:14:39 AM CalGal's courteous response (msg 552):
The motive was not pure malice, you little piece of pompom fluff. You regularly discussed your spouse's occupation on the Fray, and refer to your spouse as a "Officer Friendly" on this forum. It most certainly was appropos to what being discussed--you just didn't think the connection was relevant.
I had no idea you considered it private information. As I said to you in the Inferno, if it had been, I would have apologized immediately.
We made it clear that we could not put the genie back into the bottle. If someone releases the information at any time, it is no longer private. I have already mentioned this as a relevant data point with Stone, who used his name as a login at one point. The mere use of the name does not entail a violation, IMO. What does constitute a violation, IMO, is the malicious use of information about another person that the poster knows is no longer openly available. That is the category that Cellar's use of Stone's real name falls under.
Continued use of private information after requests not to use it can be considered abusive, and there is still an out in the RoE for abuse.
Were you to publicly request that you didn't want your spouse's occupation referred to ever again, then I would comply with that request out of courtesy. However, that includes you not referring to his occupation either, so give up on "Officer Friendly". 735. Seguine - 2/21/2000 4:33:35 AM "Speaking of the existence of children doesn't seem very personal to me..."
A person's name doesn't seem very personal to me. Others of us prioritize various personal info--occupation, affiliations, names of colleagues, photographs--differently still. When making rules, why get into details that privilege exactly one set of concerns, unless the rules are intended to cater to one group of people?
"...and calling someone a lousy mother doesn't seem more abusive or personal than calling them an idiot."
Once again, the standard I propose does not depend on a definition of "abuse" that rises above others, nor on a definition of "personal" that excludes all personal exchanges. It depends on personal information being used to abuse (or attack, or threaten, or insult, or harass).
Honest mistakes will happen, and such references would surely be deleted by hosts upon request in order to protect personal info from becoming ever more broadly disseminated. But the same concerns that apply for revelations of rl ids apply to revelation of other kinds of information, and if they are to be fair the rules should acknowledge this. 736. Seguine - 2/21/2000 4:35:06 AM CalGal's courteous response (msg 552):
The motive was not pure malice, you little piece of pompom fluff. You regularly discussed your spouse's occupation on the Fray, and refer to your spouse as a "Officer Friendly" on this forum. It most certainly was appropos to what being discussed--you just didn't think the connection was relevant.
I had no idea you considered it private information. As I said to you in the Inferno, if it had been, I would have apologized immediately.
We made it clear that we could not put the genie back into the bottle. If someone releases the information at any time, it is no longer private. I have already mentioned this as a relevant data point with Stone, who used his name as a login at one point. The mere use of the name does not entail a violation, IMO. What does constitute a violation, IMO, is the malicious use of information about another person that the poster knows is no longer openly available. That is the category that Cellar's use of Stone's real name falls under.
Continued use of private information after requests not to use it can be considered abusive, and there is still an out in the RoE for abuse.
Were you to publicly request that you didn't want your spouse's occupation referred to ever again, then I would comply with that request out of courtesy. However, that includes you not referring to his occupation either, so give up on "Officer Friendly". 737. Seguine - 2/21/2000 4:44:56 AM Weird. I did not do that 736 repeat of 734. 738. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 4:56:02 AM It isn't illegal IRL to learn someone's name, number, address, or their history. It isn't illegal to publicly display that information about another person. It seems strange, no? I mean, after all, you'd think that if this was such a pressing concern it'd make sense to restrict that information from being spread IRL, because the people who would learn it IRL have on average much greater access to you than someone who reads your words in a chatroom. Yet the information is not restricted. Threats and abuse on the other hand are highly restricted IRL. Strange how that system works, and stranger how we're ignoring it. 739. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 5:16:03 AM "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?"
I'm not sure. I'm assuming it's because you didn't participate in the open discussion regarding the RoE that took place over the course of several days.
"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."
Gee, I think maybe the idea that we've been operating under these rules for some time now and that they have been refined more than once when the community saw a need would be a hint. The reason we got to do it was because NO ONE ELSE VOLUNTEERED. Certainly not you. Pellenilsson was interested but had to decline due to lack of time to commit. This didn't take place in some smoky back room someplace. If adjustments to the RoE are desired by the community then let's discuss it but to show up five months after their inception and claim that some sinister cabal went behind the backs of the rest of the forum to make their own rules and dictate to the people who really matter in this forum is paranoid bullshit.
740. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 5:18:26 AM There seem to be some reasons, specific to cyber-space, for more careful control of real life information. Some of us live in places where punitive action might conceivably be taken against them for their statements in this place. Some of us worry about someone latching onto our name and stalking us or choosing us for their next murder (which seems to be to be false and silly to me, but might genuinely concern some). Their concerns should be voiced and seen to. Of course, some of us might be more concerned because of their place of employment -- i.e. that a supervisor or a contractor might see them here, later return to the site, and see that their employee or their contracted professional is apparently spending a lot of time they're paid for on-line in a discussion forum. I somewhat suspect that this is of rather pressing concern to a few of our members. beliefs Personally, I have very little sympathy for that, though I do understand that some other people have genuine reasons to be concerned about the wellbeing of their family and themselves and I'm more sympathetic to that. Yet here's the thing -- banning the use of personal information will not prevent the spread of that information (as we have all seen) and anyone obsessed enough to use that information can find a way to get it and spread it. How? Well, this IS an anonymous forum, as you all know. Poster X can come in as Fake Y, cozy up to the people they despise, start emailing them, and eventually suss the info out of them or their friends or pick it up in a slip of the tongue. Who can know the difference? It's happened in the Fray. Especially if the poster in question claims not to be worried about their name being known by other known Motiers, just by people they don't 'know' OL. 741. JudithAtHome - 2/21/2000 5:25:09 AM But if someone "cozied up to" another via e-mail and released personal info about themselves to that person, it would be on the head of the releasee, wouldn't it? 742. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 5:26:26 AM to show up five months after their inception and
claim that some sinister cabal went behind the backs of
the rest of the forum to make their own rules and dictate
to the people who really matter in this forum is paranoid
bullshit. Who is suggesting that?
|
 |
Go To Mote #
|
|
