|
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.
915. Toenails - 2/22/2000 5:30:59 AM Pelle: You seem to have your detractors, but I would be interested in knowing what it's like (i.e., just how boring is it?) to be other-than-American and skulking around in The Mote.
Are there decent non-Yank-dominated chatrooms elsewhere on the net where you can get relief? (How about a few cites? I wouldn't mind going to where I could get the experience of being the Outsider myself, now and again.)
If it helps any, I'm Swedish just two generations back.
916. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 5:32:33 AM
Cellar:
Pelle knows (I think) that I'm "just joshing."
I generally don't greet someone with the salutation "Fuck off, you socialist Swedish bore-drone" to people *who just agreed with my last post.* 917. Indiana Jones - 2/22/2000 5:34:38 AM Personally, I thought Pelle threatened Ace with physical violence. First the icicle remark, then vague allusions to a chainsaw. 918. ChristiPeters - 2/22/2000 5:37:06 AM Ace (905) - I am a slow typer and started that post about 10 posts ago. My definition of abuse is not that silly. So, no, I don't think it is abuse to "... accuse Ohio of disgusting hackery and disingenousness?" or call CalGal "a lousy Mom", or call me that, etc.
So far, The Mote has addressed the few incidents of what I would call "abuse" just fine. This is not kindergarten. There may have been misses I am not aware of as I haven't been around much lately.
CalGal (909) - Private info. I mean private info. I have talked about my daughter - that makes it open info. I have NOT said her real name or my real name or the name of where I work - that is private info.
|
