|
859. CalGal - 2/22/2000 12:37:17 AM Irv,
What's wrong with discussing it?
Jesus. Nothing is wrong in discussing it. I've been discussing it. I also don't mind if enough people decide that a change is needed. I've said that enough times I didn't think it needed repeating.
But two people came in and demanded to know what the hell we were talking about this for? So I responded to them--basically we are discussing it because someone invited them to put their policy changes on the table. While I personally would rather we not invite everyone to do so just because they don't like the existing ones, that's just my preference. I then pointed out that the only way to avoid this would be to have some sort of consensus required in order to make a change.
That's my answer to them, given their complaints about the discussion. So you took my answer to Dan and Pincher--who are actually the ones bitching about the discussion--and respond to it as if I'm the one growling about the discussion. But that's their beef, not mine. Please make your point about discussion to them. Me, I've responded to the proposed change.
860. Seguine - 2/22/2000 12:38:32 AM I think I'm more or less in agreement with IndianaJones' Message # 840, which I think my proposal in Message # 850 & Message # 851 addresses. 861. 109109 - 2/22/2000 12:40:31 AM I think this is a right fine discussion.
But if you think ya'll can come down to the great state of Politics and dictate to me and mine how to govun' ouwselves, you gotta' anutha' thing comin.' 862. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/22/2000 12:50:24 AM Cal:
No problem. I disagree with your idea that we need a consensus to revisit the RoE. I think we should welcome discussion on it, as long as the discussion stays away from personalities (I have no desire to see anything like yesterday's discussion again, and I know you don't want to see it either).
I am sure you are in favor of productive discussion, and I think that's what we're getting now.
I think the difference in approach arises from our different answers to the question you posed:
What I was asking is this: given that some people are upset that the subject has even come up, how do we move from complaints to determining if there is a need for action?
You feel the next step is to determine there is a need for action. I feel the next step is inviting concrete proposals, which is what I did. To me, discussing whether we should discuss something is counterproductive and leads to discussions like yesterday's. Now we have two proposals on the table, which we can discuss. In the end, we will decide to do one of three things:
1) Keep the RoE as they are.
2) Revise the RoE to incorporate changes.
3) Replace the RoE with one of the proposed versions. 863. bubbaette - 2/22/2000 1:17:10 AM I like Seguine's interpretation in 850 and 851. 864. CalGal - 2/22/2000 1:56:32 AM I think the "personal information", as opposed to "private information" is a real problem area.
Do we really want to get into the area where someone can be banned for telling me that I'm a lousy mother, that Ace is a crappy lawyer, that Niner is short? Why is personal information any different from a straightout insult?
I see no real benefit to the additional work this creates.
There is a FAQ that is in draft form. It was linked into Suggestions for comment a couple weeks ago. 865. 109109 - 2/22/2000 2:24:03 AM I am not short.
I am petite.
That said, I think the discussion about the wording is largely irrelevant. Cazart has one thing right. Though he moans like a little Pollyanna all the time, each situation demands a call, and the "rules" may produce inconsistent results. Moreover, good folk with clean records will get a break over a troublesome cuss.
For example, if a person who was respected asked for a TT or a Internet Forums thread, they'd probably get it. Cazart, however, is an ex-Mote felon who spits and moans. So, he/she is out. Rosetta is person soley fixed on dabbling in internal politics of this and other forums. Whatever floats his boat, but he too is basically enjoined from hosting because he is roundly and with some credence regarded as a meddling putzola.
Fine with me. I trust the powers that be, and even if I didn't, and felt they were being foolish, it is still rather trivial. We've all had to live under administrations we have not agreed with, and I face 4 to 8 years fo Al Gore after 8 years of Clinton. I can live with a couple of inconsistent decisions and vague wording. I am sure we all can as well, as we have.
866. Cellar Door - 2/22/2000 2:29:29 AM "Compact," Niner, "Compact."
He's bigger than Tom Cruise, folks. And much more interesting. 867. Seguine - 2/22/2000 2:43:49 AM "Do we really want to get into the area where someone can be banned for telling me that I'm a lousy mother, that Ace is a crappy lawyer, that Niner is short?"
Yes. In the first place, a rule against use of personal info to insult or attack puts some specifics around the old, and conveniently weak, rule against "abuse". I oppose a Mote-wide rule against "abuse" because it is vague enough to invite contempt (and has done, in spades). Contempt invites violation. OTOH, I don't object to a thread host specifying that he will delete posts he deems abusive. It's the thread host's business to determine whether he'll hold posters to higher degrees of civility than are required throughout the Mote.
But the minimum standard should be clear(er), should make possible both deletion and banning or suspension (i.e., access denial), and should be exercised at the moderator's discretion (i.e., mercy is hers to dispense, or not). By making it possible to suspend access because of personal info abuses, there should be no discussion needed, e.g., as to whether JadeGold actually threatened Rosetta's kids; if she insulted them, the rules would permit the moderator to suspend/ban. There should be no need to argue about whether it was appropriate for a member of the SONM to deride CalGal's views on the basis of the fact that, months prior, she had mentioned she was in therapy. Did Jonathan Ferguson reveal privileged info about Jenerator, or was it his own info to reveal? The intent was obviously to insult, abuse, or harrass her; the revised rule makes the source of the information about her irrelevant. Banning his id would be clearly within the moderator's scope of proper authority.
868. Seguine - 2/22/2000 2:44:33 AM As for the terrible loss to this forum of charges that CalGal is a bad mother, Ace is crappy lawyer, Niner is short--somehow, this doesn't exercise me. I expect an injunction against such patently boring insults would encourage us all to deride each other more cleverly.
869. Seguine - 2/22/2000 2:52:53 AM "...I face 4 to 8 years fo Al Gore after 8 years of Clinton."
I like Clinton, but I don't like Gore, I don't think I like Bradley, and although I almost like McCain, the Governor of Texas is an arrogant cipher.
If anyone wins this election, I will be bound by civic duty to agitate for a Constitutional ammendment. 870. CalGal - 2/22/2000 2:53:00 AM I'm not claiming it is a loss; I'm saying that I consider it to be unworkable.
I also think it protects people more than they need to be protected. Why should the forum administrator have to chastise someone else just because they referred to information that is known? What if there was no intent to hurt? What if they think it's relevant, and that it is hypocritical for someone to hide behind this protection?
For that matter, what if someone were to just post the person's words? Would that be a violation?
Cig is arguing for single payer, and someone hunts up Cig's announcement of his illness. We make it a bannable offense to quote someone's own words?
I see no way this won't get into real problem areas. That's the whole point of the privacy rule--and even it has some ambiguities. But to say that words posted here can't be used in a debate? Where does one draw the line? 871. Indiana Jones - 2/22/2000 2:56:21 AM If someone posts something personal, then it's fair game. That's why I don't do it.
100 percent protection for what you keep private.
0 percent protection for what you don't.
Fairly unambigious. 872. Adrianne - 2/22/2000 2:56:43 AM
Ack!
Not that this matters to anyone but me, but I was not annoyed at CG for "revealing" my husband's occupation.
HEY EVERYBODY! MY HUSBAND'S A COP!
(and yes, RustlerPike, it's JUST like it is on tv).
She misunderstood what I was pissed about.
FWIW, I would personally support a rule against the use of personal info not revealed *in this forum* or *on the Mote*, as opposed to a rule against revealing something that hadn't been exposed "online." It doesn't take much work to find and abuse posts from Mote participants on other forums, and I don't think it's very nice to consider, say, a post that RosettaStone made on "Odious Toads Anonymous" as fair game on this, an entirely unrelated forum.
873. Dusty - 2/22/2000 2:58:59 AM Message # 865 109109
For example, if a person who was respected asked for a TT or a Internet Forums thread, they'd probably get it.
I was the first one to ask for a TT thread. (In response to a post by you, ironically.)
I read you loud and clear. 874. Adrianne - 2/22/2000 2:59:00 AM
Oh, and iffen you can't remember where you so the info posted - then err on the side of NOT being a freakin douchebag. 875. CalGal - 2/22/2000 3:08:56 AM FWIW, I would personally support a rule against the use of personal info not revealed *in this forum* or *on the Mote*, as opposed to a rule against revealing something that hadn't been exposed "online."
I agree, with the one grey area being the Fray. I realize that's the area under dispute, and I think it makes sense that any revelations that were only made in the Fray can be deleted and requested to be kept private from now on. I don't think someone should be banned for not doing that--too many of us have an ongoing knowledge of each other that was never interrupted. It's harder to keep straight. But I think these can be handled on a case by case basis, and I have no problem with information that was only revealed on the Fray being considered private. I just think that people who make such comments shouldn't be banned unless they have already been told once that it's private. 876. 109109 - 2/22/2000 3:15:21 AM Dusty
Ha ha ha ha ha. Were you? My bad. You know what I mean. if you clamored, you'd get it.
Ad
Your husband is a cop? I have this parking ticket problem . . .
Seg
On your proposed policy, it seems like a lot of work to discern the abuse angle. That said, if those who make the decisions don't mind, it seems nebulous. I would suggest that a list of simple no-no's - divorced from andy "abuse" standard - apply, such as names, photos, numbers, addresses, places of work, etc . . .
This also strikes me as a fair balance.
But, of course, I think the language is irrelevant as long as the small chummy insiders such as myself keep running the real show.
877. 109109 - 2/22/2000 3:17:06 AM And there is no such person named "andy abuse."
that is "any abuse."
878. Seguine - 2/22/2000 3:25:08 AM "I also think it protects people more than they need to be protected. Why should the forum administrator have to chastise someone else just because they referred to information that is known? What if there was no intent to hurt? What if they think it's relevant, and that it is hypocritical for someone to hide behind this protection?"
Some people hide behind other kinds of protection. "I didn't know the info was PRIVATE" is a common one. So is, "I didn't think it mattered because the info had been revealed already/here/publicly/ten years ago in passing." Then there's "I didn't intend to hurt." If one makes one's remarks knowing that the moderator may decide otherwise, one will, I expect, use greater caution in the first place.
"Cig is arguing for single payer, and someone hunts up Cig's announcement of his illness. We make it a bannable offense to quote someone's own words?'
The debate is not furthered by promulgating such info, signalling to others that one is "in the know" about Cig in order to belittle him. The ad hominem may surely be delivered without repeating personal particulars (see previous example). If quoting remarks containing personal info seems necessary to your argument, quote civilly. If a barrage of "civil" recapitulations of others personal info strikes the moderator as excessive, she may deem them harassment. (Obviously, the object(s) of the barrage should have grounds to complain.)
"But to say that words posted here can't be used in a debate? Where does one draw the line?"
Don't obfuscate. I have not said words posted here "can't be used in a debate". One draws the line at insulting, attacking, harassing, or threatening.
|
