|
64. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 9:59:55 PM
Jay:
Niner has revealed his sexuality on numerous occasions. Hundreds. That is therefore NOT "private" information, as the rule states.
These quibbles are outright ludicrous. 65. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:01:05 PM "Deliberate and malicious revelations of sensitive information are grounds for banning. If one of those elements is not established, it may result in a penalty less than banning."
What's wrong with that? Add repeated to the first compound subject, and I think that's just fine. It leaves the judge to decide what is or isn't sensitive and what is or isn't deliberate, repeated or malicious. You're gonna need a judge no matter what. And this leaves room for the judge to deal with context and circumstance.
66. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:04:54 PM Niner's personal history is all news to me. The point I'm making here is that there's an implicit "unless already made public or clearly just a joke" clause in your rule. And then you're right back on the slippery slope of what's public, or interpreting the offense depending on who's saying it and the context. 67. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 10:05:06 PM
If you would allow a role for clemency based on unusual or mitigating circumstances and a proper break-in period where everyone learns the new rules, I could support it completely.
I have suggested that the PRESUMPTIVE penalty for a deliberate, malicious outing of sensitive private information should be banning for the most sensitive info (name, address, shit like that; I'll write a little list if Jay insists) and lesser penalties ranging from one month's to one year's suspension for other very sensitive pieces of information. (For lesser, trivial pieces of information, days or weeks, if someone squawks about it.) But that's PRESUMTIVE. If there are strongly mitigating circumstances, sure, give a lesser penalty.
I would allow NO TIME for people to "get used to the rule." It's right there in the RoE. It will be debated. And IT'S COMMON SENSE, anyway.
I am NOT talking about revelations like, "Oh, I had a wonderful lunch with Glenda last week." For god's sake, that's not what we're talking about here. It's absurd to bring that up, since no one's going to bitch about it.
68. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 10:06:19 PM Jay,
The problem will continue to be one of interpretation and boundaries. Since some of us do freely give away information publicly--my office phone number is 212-987-4680--and we will consort with each other in real life, and we will obtain personal information from different sources, what can we say and not say?
I think it should be workable that if a poster reveals something in the Mote, others can use it and any reasonable inferences thereof. Fuzzy cases are fuzzy, and if a poster thinks a host is not being aggressive enough in banning unreasnable inferences, they can complain to the management trio. But such small scale stuff is barely worth a stern warning, certainly not a suspension.
If I mention something about you and airline capacity planning, have I overstepped a bound? If I make a false assertion about your relationship with your dog (mine's fine, btw), is that overstepping a bound?
Not if I’ve revealed it online or if it’s an obvious inference. But – if I reveal my line of work and it happens to be rare enough that you can put it together with a few other tidbits and figure out who I am (within –say- an 80% certainty), then I would hope you would ask my permission before outing me – and if you outed me without my permission, I would expect the host to censor it immediately. 69. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 10:06:41 PM
Jay:
NO. NO "REPEATED." If I get outed ONCE, deliberately and maliciously, WHY THE HELL SHOULD THE OFFENDER GET A SECOND CHANCE TO OUT SOMEBODY ELSE?
I feel very strongly about this (note the all caps). I redirect you to my post about warnings: There is no need for a warning. You are already warned. 70. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 10:10:17 PM
Jay:
I defined "public" in an earlier version of the rules. You squawked that it was too complex. Here's the definition again, if you want it:
For information to be "public" information, it must be revealed EXPLICITLY, PUBLICLY, and PERSONALLY by the Motie himself.
What does that mean?
Explicity: Motie must offer the information explicitly. Just because you can derive, say, Pelle Nillson's medical history by searching a database for it, that doesn't mean he's "explicitly" offered the information. "Derived" information is not explicitly provided by the motie.
PUBLICLY: The Motie must reveal it publicly, on line. Not in a phone call. Not in an e-mail. SImple
PERSONALLY: The Motie must reveal it himself. If someone outs the Motie, that information should not be considered "public," because the Motie himself did not reveal it. 71. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:10:54 PM Everyone agrees with that formulation Adam. And I really thought we'd be fine depending on good will and good faith, which that formulation depends on.
the problem comes up when personal animosity leads to people testing the boundaries of the rules and accusing each other of violating the rules. The only answer for that, as Ace has said, is to find a respected enforcer who will simply lay down the law without appeal. Once that's done a couple of times, the boundaries will be clearer. I object to lengthy, specific rules because they create arguments about unstated principles. 72. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 10:11:14 PM All:
Many people have talked about how terrible this discussion has been - and there have been needless excesses - but I'm still very happy with the way it's turning out. We seem to have a slightly looser content-based censoring standard than the old place, we're keeping the idea of respecting each other's privacy (as individually desired), and we're finding novel ways to deal with flame-outs.
I'm a fairly happy camper, at this point. 73. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:12:35 PM Sorry, Ace, I meant repeated to mean, "repeated, but not malicious."
on 70, isn't that exactly what profiles would accomplish--the summary of material that the motie considers public? 74. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 10:16:16 PM Jay,
the problem comes up when personal animosity leads to people testing the boundaries of the rules and accusing each other of violating the rules. The only answer for that, as Ace has said, is to find a respected enforcer who will simply lay down the law without appeal. Once that's done a couple of times, the boundaries will be clearer. I object to lengthy, specific rules because they create arguments about unstated principles.
I don't think these are necessarily mutually exclusive. A clear rule with appropriate hedge words ("blatant" outings, for example) and a respected (final) enforcer will work just fine. As I've said, I would rather see rule-testers aggressively dealt with, because they are intentionally trying to see how much they can reveal - and I see no good reason why we want people to even be trying to reveal stuff. 75. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 10:16:18 PM
Niner's personal history is all news to me.
It's not news to a hundred people here. And Niner is just about my best "virtual" buddy, so come on. Give me a break.
I think something should be sort of implicit: When you divulge personal information, the DIVULGER does so at his own risk. The violated party should not bear the burden of risk. If there is a risk of uncertainty to be borne here, then for god's sake, let's place that uncertainty on posters who reveal information about other posters, NOT the aggrieved party.
And I stand by that rule.
If Niner complains that I've outed him as a straight, then I KNEW the risk I was taking, and *I* should bear the consequences. And if there's a penalty to be paid, I'll pay it.
The rule should be: When in doubt, don't out. If you're unsure, keep your fucking mouth shut. Ask a question. If you go up to the line and then cross it, and somebody calls you on it, you should pay the price, because common sense dictates you shouldn't have been near that line at all. 76. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 10:18:15 PM
Adam:
EXACTLY!!! The burden of risk, the burden of uncertainty, should be on the "outer" of private info, not on the VICTIM!!
If you want to push the envelope, don't whine and bitch if you break the envelope and get penalized for it. You knew you were taking a chance. If you were showing other people the respect they deserved, you wouldn't have been pushing the envelope in the first fucking place. 77. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 10:18:51 PM Jay,
I sorta like the profile idea but for a different reason. It would be a good way for newbies to get up to speed with the relevant info about who's who. But I wouldn't expect every Motie to update their profile more than once a year even if they reveal new stuff online. BTW, "online" to me means in the Mote, not any any other forum - is that our common understanding? 78. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:18:52 PM "Deliberate and malicious revelations of sensitive information are grounds for banning. If one of those elements is not established, it may result in a penalty less than banning."
I still like this language of Ace's. It requires a nanny to enforce it, but this is what we mean, isn't it?
79. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:22:09 PM 77
No, we're not in agreement on whether we're talking only about the mote. I agree that "I didn't mean to" should be considered a lame defense.
Ace--
You're making my points. You can, if you want, say rude things about Niner's sexual history because he's a virtual buddy of yours. If someone who was not his virtual buddy said similar things, you'd be at his or her throat, pointing to the rules and screaming. Context matters. That's why specific rules are chimerical. 80. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 10:22:54 PM
Here are the two possible regimes:
Put the burden of uncertainty on the outer of private information: The "outer," who can CONTROL what he's saying, after all, has an incentive to use common sense and err on the side of decency and caution
Put the burden of risk on the victim: The victim obviously cannot control what his outer will say. Furthermore, the "outer" is sort of incentivized to push the envelope, because he can always claim "Geeze I didn't know" and get off, meanwhile delivering the malicious blow he wanted. 81. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 10:23:18 PM Yep. That language is fine by me in #78. And I would expect that the "deliberate" without malicious penalty would be perhaps a day or two's banning, just so the poster learns to pay attention. 82. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:23:41 PM And I still say the profile solves the public vs private problem. I won't always be able to remember whether I learned something here or not.
83. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 10:27:33 PM
Jay:
And I don't think you understand: I know with 100% certainty that Niner 1) has outed his sexual history;
2) does not mind if I make jokes about how lame he is; and
3) there is no three. One and Two pretty much cover it.
If I step over the line, I AM PERFECTLY WILLING TO PAY THE PRICE. I assumed the risk. The assumption of risk should be placed on the party who can CONTROL the risk.
Niner cannot control that risk. I CAN. Therefore, I should assume it. And I am more than willing to assume it.
And you're being silly. "Jokes" and insults do not reveal factual information. If I call you a "big fatty four by four stupid stupid moron jerkweed dorkwad," what "Fact" have I revealed?
What are you objecting to? That I revealed you were a "dorkwad"?
If I reveal Niner's name is "Joe Schlobotnik" (it isn't), how the fuck can that be a "joke"? There is no overlap.
Come on. This nonsense only slows down the debate. Let's keep to the real issues, please.
|
