|
895. Indiana Jones - 2/22/2000 5:08:12 AM Pincher: Good post. (I'm going to start trying to speak up more when I agree with people.)
An example of the "revealed" personal info thing happened to me recently on TableTalk. One poster there kept bringing up her father whenever McCain or Bob Kerrey was mentioned. Her father had been in the service, yada, yada, yada. Finally, I teed off on her father (not too bad...just said it was lucky for the Viet Cong her father wasn't involved in that war) and another poster said I was being horrible.
Tough. You don't hear me talking about my impending knighthood. I'd just rather not deal with all the baggage that goes with being a member of the royal family. 896. 109109 - 2/22/2000 5:08:38 AM Seg
I'd be interested in assisting with any future venture, provided it is in some way related to porno. 897. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 5:08:49 AM Seg:
Your proposed rules say nothing much different than the current rules. I suspect you prefer them chiefly because they were written by yourself.
As to your unworkable "any personal information rule"-- Cal has it right. You're seeking to protect people from which they do not have any need nor desire of protection against.
You laugh off the "Niner's short," "Ace is a crappy lawyer" hypotheticals, saying "I won't get exercised about that." But if you're not going to get exercised about that-- that which your rules specifically seek to protect against-- they why bother?
You seek a change which you won't enforce? Why?
I don't like it when I'm called a "crappy lawyer" and yadda yadda yadda. It *is* used as an "attack," of course, and it *is* a use of personal information which I have revealed. I like Cellar's and Jade's witty epilepsy jokes even less.
But certainly I need no protection against people using such "personal information."
If you're not going to get "exercised" when such "personal information" is used to "attack" Niner, Cal, and I, when *will* you become exercised? Only when such information is used to attack yourself or people you have greater empathy for?
Not much of a rule, Seguine. If we're going to lay everything out all neat and legal, we'll have to include a sub-clause about information that causes some people to become "exercised."
898. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 5:09:00 AM
Perhaps you meant: "Well, then such attacks will ALSO be banned, but who cares?"
But this is silly as well. I mock Niner's alleged (though very borderline) shortness because, you know, I can't just bust on him for being a knife-fighting taco bender all day long. I don't think I'm hurting Niner by calling him R2-D2. In fact, I sort of think it turns him on.
So why ban something which the alleged victim doesn't mind?
Perhaps you will suggest that shortness attacks on Niner won't be banned because Niner won't complain, and a complaint is necessary.
But one of things we were trying to avoid was such a victim-subjective regime, whereby the thinnest-skinned among us call for (and are granted) suspensions and deletiongs galore, but the tougher-skinned must just grin and bear it.
899. PelleNilsson - 2/22/2000 5:14:25 AM I think most of Seguine's postitions are untenable. This is not a kindergarten and was never meant to be. 900. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 5:14:56 AM
When the ROE was being hashed out, various absolutist, bright-line proposals like yours were forwarded and considered.
Ultimately, it was generally agreed that absolute, bright-line rules were unworkable-- there are *always* exceptions, and it's dishonest to claim that there aren't-- so Cal came up with a formulation which forthrightly stated that this was all in the discretion of Wabbit, in her esteemed judgement, based on the specific case.
Your suggest of an absolute, bright-line ban on "any personal information" used to "attack" is unworkable as written. 901. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 5:15:28 AM
Fuck off, you socialist Swedish bore-drone. 902. 109109 - 2/22/2000 5:15:40 AM pelle
I think she wants it to be a frat house, which is cool, because I have one of those hats that holds two Buds and I like to say "Wasssssssuuuuuuuuuuuup!" 903. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 5:16:25 AM
Case in point:
With every post Pelle writes, he reveals, explicitly, the personal information that he is:
1) socialist
2) Swedish
3) a bore-drone
Need I refrain from pointing out the obvious? 904. ChristiPeters - 2/22/2000 5:18:00 AM hmmmmmm....
This is an interesting discussion and I have some things to add to the $0.02 I put in last night.
1. I think it should be ok for ANYONE to discuss policy ANYTIME.
2. I think it should be ok for ANYONE to propose changes to policy ANYTIME.
3. For any proposed policy change to be implemented, I think we should take a simple vote, via email to (pick someone - change it next time), with a reasonable time limit during which to vote (24 hrs? 48 hrs?), and a 2/3 majority required to "pass" the proposed change. The vote info (proposed change laid out, plus link to email for vote) should be on the front page.
I would also like to state my own personal opinion on the following:
1. I think abuse, whether it includes personal information or not, should be banned. I realize this requires "abuse" to be defined, which may or may not get tricky.
2. I think posting of another's irl personal information, whether it is used to abuse, compliment, or just mentioned in passing, should be banned. 905. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 5:20:32 AM
"Abuse" cannot be banned, because, for example, some liberals do not think it "abuse" to accuse their opponents of racism at the drop of the hat.
Is it "abuse" to accuse Ohio of disgusting hackery and disingenousness?
Please, Christi. 906. PelleNilsson - 2/22/2000 5:20:49 AM Bend over Ace and feel the Scandinavian icicle all the way up! 907. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 5:21:18 AM
"Abuse" per se cannot be banned, I meant.
There must always be the caveat/qualifier-- Gratiutous abuse or whatever. 908. Indiana Jones - 2/22/2000 5:21:27 AM I volunteer to tabulate all votes and report the results. 909. CalGal - 2/22/2000 5:21:46 AM Christi,
Personal info, or private info?
In other words, you've mentioned Lil Darlin. To me, that is personal but not private info. Is no one else allowed to mention her? Is no one else allowed to insult you as a bad mom (but able to call you a stupid idiot--in other words, you can't use the personal information to abuse under Seg's policy).
On the other hand, if I knew where you worked and mentioned it online, that would be a privacy violation. Which do you think should be banned? 910. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 5:21:51 AM
"Bend over Ace and feel the Scandinavian icicle all the way up!"
In your dreams. Go fuck a salted fish. 911. PelleNilsson - 2/22/2000 5:25:04 AM So, ChritiePeters, and others: has Ace abused me or not? And he hasn't even mentioned that I'm just a fucking telecom engineer who likes to ravage the landscape with a chainsaw. 912. CalGal - 2/22/2000 5:25:38 AM Who's married and went to some place in Africa. 913. Toenails - 2/22/2000 5:25:48 AM
Ace (re #897)
You realize, of course, that "crappy lawyer" is redundant?
914. Cellar Door - 2/22/2000 5:26:35 AM Need I refrain from pointing out the obvious?
Is it "abuse" to accuse Ohio of disgusting hackery and disingenousness?
"Abuse" per se cannot be banned, I meant.
There must always be the caveat/qualifier-- Gratiutous abuse or whatever.
Go fuck a salted fish.
Good taste is timeless.
|
