|
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? 743. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 5:30:45 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? Not in this forum, apparently, which is one of the reasons I scratch my head when I think about the justification for the privacy rules. Yet the threat to misuse that information is actionable (Christ, now I'm saying that word) regardless of where or how it is learned, and it seems to me that threats, and not the information itself, is the natural focal point for moderator intervention. 744. PsychProf - 2/21/2000 5:32:23 AM Irv's Message # 707 is fine with me...thanks to Cazart, we are having some reinvigorating discussions. 745. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 5:36:59 AM Angel,
Valid observations. But we have more options available IRL for dealing with those who abuse our privacy and trust not to mention the fact that people are less prone to those kinds of abuses when face to face. IRL I tend to avoid those I dislike or distrust but it doesn't require me to avoid those I do like. In an online forum we cannot pick and choose who gets to participate according to everyone's personal whims therefore we may associate with those we do not repsect or who do not respect us in order to associate with those we do. Because of this I don't find it unreasonable to have stricter standards of privacy than might be enforceable in the world.
746. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 5:41:53 AM But we have more options available
IRL for dealing with those who abuse our privacy and
trust not to mention the fact that people are less prone
to those kinds of abuses when face to face. What other options? I don't think I can agree to this, simply because I've seen a lot more face to face 'abuse' than here in our cozy little OL nest. And you don't have to associate IRL with someone for them to take an active dislike to you -- and it is very easy to learn someone's personal information IRL whether or not you tell it to them. 747. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 5:42:13 AM Sorry, Angel, 745 is in response to 738 & 740.
Re:742
Seguine seems to be under the impression that if CalGal didn't singlehandedly invent the RoE without approval or input from anyone else in the forum then Harper and I were her henchmen in drafting a policy that everyone here would have to adhere to but to which they were not allowed to contribute.
748. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 5:44:49 AM I mean, what about work? You go to work where there are people you don't like, right? You go to the store where there are people you don't respect, right? You do any number of similar things and put up with people you'd rather not, because overall you are rewarded for doing so. It is the same here. 749. JudithAtHome - 2/21/2000 5:45:10 AM I seem to recall y'all almost begging people for input and help with drafting the ROE... 750. cazart - 2/21/2000 5:47:46 AM Face it, folks, the RoE are so broad and general, they are virtually meaningless. And that's not a criticism; it's merely an observation. Nor is their vagueness a bad thing--it would be impossible to clearly spell out a comprehensive set of rules or policies.
The main problem is that the RoE are enforced unevenly and inconsistently. Furthermore, it is clear that Mote powers-that-be don't understand fundamental concepts of privacy and security or at least pretend not to.
CalGal's "lousy mother" example is just silly. If you bring up your parental status (usually in some effort to demonstrate that you know everything there is to know about parenting), you really shouldn't be surprised if it is used against you. It has nothing to do with privacy and/or security.
In one of my periodic bannings from theMote, my offense was to link to a picture of another Motehead. I was banned despite the fact that this picture had been previously linked to, in this forum, and revealed no RL info whatsoever. When I complained about posts being forged in my name ( a Motehead was posting under my name ), the primary reasoin given condoning this behavior was that even though the posts were forged, my pseudonym 'protected' me.
Different rules. Different folks. 751. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 5:50:09 AM ChristinO I didn't pick that up from her reading. What I did pick up was the sense that the drafters of the ROE represented their own interests and not necessarily everyone else's. I also remember from the time that there was a bit of appeasement going on WRT the ROE. The fact that it's now up for discussion would indicate that they aren't rules (or at the least aren't worded in a manner) which everyone agrees with, especially in the way the emphasis seems to run on them.
|
