|
104. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:53:48 PM So, Ace, do you agree with:
The language you posted that I've reposted twice
A nanny account that is monitored by judges, whose ruling is final
Ban requests from the victim go to that account by email and can only come from the victim
Public bystander requests for banning are subject to sanctions
105. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 10:54:36 PM Acer, again - with the caveat that if it's linked or referenced here, that's as good as doing it here, no matter who revealed it elsewhere. 106. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 10:55:00 PM
Again the reason you want the victim's request is that only the victim knows for sure if he or she was victimized.
Jay:
Yes, yes, I agree-- in the case of things like "Niner gets hard-ons for Britney Spears." of course you won't know if that's a violation if Niner doesn't tell you. He MUST tell you for you to act.
I am ONLY suggesting automatic action-- without request-- in the case of DE FACTO bannable revelations, i.e., those revelations that no one has to tell you are revelations-- Name. Address. Family Members.
The aggrieved party should be able to ask for clemency, or can even CLEAR the offender by just saying (even lying, if they want) that they gave the outer permission to make that revelation. ANd then, fine. Vaya con Dios.
But if, say, CalGal's name is outed, and we ask her, "Cal, did you give this person permission to out your name?" and she says "No," then why do we really need Cal's request for action?
I am flexible on the point. An "unwilling witness" can always LIE to get the criminal off, by just saying "Oh, sure, I told her to do that."
But there are meek types out there. If, say, a stark raving psychopath outs CalGal, and she's too nice or too afraid to ask for his banning, then congratulations, no action is taken, and we can now wait for the psychopath to out his NEXT victim. 107. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:55:07 PM Adam,
You delete an offending message, and wait for the request. Although I agree that in egregious cases--you have a point. I guess I don't expect any egregious cases. 108. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 10:55:57 PM Jay,
If you give the hosts power to delete the posts and let the actual banning wait for the victim's request, that's not a bad compromise. 109. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:56:25 PM Yeah, I'm all right with that. Suspended until clemency is issued in egregrious cases. 110. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:57:20 PM The post gets deleted iac. That's not in dispute--except when people are trying to be tricky, and the host doesn't notice. 111. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:58:02 PM I'm outta here. 112. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 10:58:31 PM Jay,
did we just compromise right past each other? If so - then I retract my compromise! 113. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 10:58:51 PM adios. 114. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 11:04:34 PM
So, Ace, do you agree with:
The language you posted that I've reposted twice -- Looked for it, have no idea what you're talking about. I think you were quoting me, but I forget.
A nanny account that is monitored by judges, whose ruling is final --
I guess. We haven't really debated this, though. You're asking me to agree to something I haven't even CONSIDERED. I agree that we always need multiple cops available to patrol the beat, so we can ALWAYS get extreme violations removed quickly, but we haven't even discussed that other stuff, and I'd rather reserve judgement until we do.
Ban requests from the victim go to that account by email and can only come from the victim -- For De Facto violations (Name, Address, Family Members), I don't see why victim request should be necessary. If the victim wants to beg for mercy for the outer, fine, grant some mercy. I am sort of flexible here, but if CalGal goes away for a two month vacation, can someone out her name during the vacation? Why?
What if I quit the Mote tomorrow (or rather, simply don't post here anymore)? Can people begin posting my personal information, and no one will even have the common sense and common decency to do something about it, even in clear cases of violations?
Am I forever obliged to Monitor this site just to make sure no one's outing me? Is this like the Mafia or CIA-- in for a second, in for a lifetime?
Public bystander requests for banning are subject to sanctions
Huh? What does this mean? I don't get this.
115. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 11:10:39 PM
Adam:
There shouldn't need to be any "linkage" to this site for a banning.
People do not need to spread other people's personal information all over the Internet. It's unnecessary. It's malicious. It's probably illegal.
We can't STOP it. But we sure the fuck can ban someone from this site if we catch them, can't we?
And why wouldn't we? Who wants someone like that as part of their community?
Wouldn't you feel nervous talking to me if you knew I was exposing confidential details about you in other places?
Why the fuck would you even want me here?
I don't get it. You're postulating a PSYCHOPATH, and then saying, "Oh, let's just worry about our own backyard; if a psycho wants to out personal information about us all over the internet, let's let him, and certainly not ban him from the site."
Huh?
Why do you want to keep him? 116. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 11:19:28 PM We can't STOP it. But we sure the fuck can ban someone from this site if we catch them, can't we?
And if some malicions Motie goes to another site, logs in as Ace Of Spades, and outs a few people, you want yourself to be banned? Do you want to have to prove that it really wasn't you? How would you do it?
The links I'm refering to are links FROM here to an outing, as you probably gathered. Just making sure. Only if something is actually posted in the Mote can we be reasonably sure who did it, and that's when we nail 'em.
117. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 11:26:58 PM
And if some malicions Motie goes to another site, logs in as Ace Of Spades, and outs a few people, you want yourself to be banned? Do you want to have to prove that it really wasn't you? How would you do it?
Of course, we'd have to be able to PROVE it.
But if you can prove it==> BAN.
Now, yes, some smart fuck can just post random shit by using a random name, can't he? Yes he can. And we can't do anything about that, can we? No we can't.
But most of us have known aliases on TT. I am Simon Templar, for example. And in the case where a known, or provable, alias outs someone on another site, let's ban the little shit, huh?
Is this rule easily escapable? Yes, I suppose it is. But once again, if we have the goods on somebody-- BAN THEM. 118. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 11:30:27 PM
God, for example, has admitted his TT alias, too. (I won't say it here, just in case I'm wrong.) But assuming he has admitted it here, well, then, that's proof that the TT alias is God, and if he outs someone on TT, he should be penalized.
Yeah, I know. You can do this shit anonymously. But sometimes criminals are dumb and leave proof of their crime. And when they leave proof that they've done this, let's ban them.
In cases where it cannot be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the alias belongs to the Motie, then acquit. I agree with that.
I definitely agree with your gist-- where we don't know beyond a reasonable doubt, we can't do anything. And just because someone named "Ace of Spades" does something on TT, you don't have any evidene that it's me.
BUT-- and this is a big BUT-- if there IS conclusive evidence the ID's are one and the same, then we should take action, linkage or not. 119. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 11:30:36 PM Ace,
I understand your reasoning and I fully agree with your motive, but I disagree that it's remotely practical. Therefore, I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one. I think mote policy should only apply to the mote, just like i think info revealed on other sites should not be considered as revealed here. 120. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 11:41:25 PM
but I disagree that it's remotely practical.
Adam:
Here's how it shakes down:
of the few times this happens, we'll only find out about some of the situations.
of the few situations we find out about, we'll only be able to prove a specific motie did it in a small number of cases.
But in that small number of cases where we DO find out and DO know (KNOW, not "think") who did it, why should we not take action?
Your reasoning, I think, is a bit, well, illogical. You postulate, correctly, that we'll only be able to take action in a subset of these cases. So, you reason, if we're not taking action among ALL the cases, why take action in the subset where we've got the goods on somebody?
Why?
Further, let's think about this. Let's say that somebody goes over and outs somebody in FC. We all go over there from time to time, right?
If you lay down the blanket rule that we will NEVER take action, you are INVITING someone to go over there and do it. You are giving her an IRON CLAD DEFENSE.
I say, let's leave the option open. If you rule out penalizing this kind of bullshit, you are ENCOURAGING it.
Seguine obviously WANTED to out CalGal. I don't know if she still does, but under your rule, you are INVITING her to out CalGal (not in code this time) at Table Talk, and TELLING her-- You CAN DO THIS. Have fun!! Have a party!!! Rock on, baby!!! Go crazy and WE WON'T DO SHIT ABOUT IT!!! Carte blanche!!!
I'd prefer to keep the possibility of taking action open, so long as we can PROVE what's happened.
You say we won't be able to prove it too often? You are probably correct.
But please keep the option open. If you lay down the law that it's okay, you've just made Table Talk the officially sanctioned dumping ground of all personal information of any Moter. 121. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 11:49:09 PM
Emphasis: You've just SANCTIONED Table Talk as the dumping ground for sensitive personal information.
I would rather have NOTHING said on this point, and leave it vague and discretionary, than lay down your rule that it is AFFIRMATIVELY SANCTIONED to spread sensitive personal information on TT. 122. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 11:51:10 PM
And if you're going to sanction that-- then why have a rule at all? 123. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 11:54:06 PM Ace,
Even with the additional authority in your post, it's still a trivial task for someone to do what you're so worried about. Seguine could even log into another chat room AS CalGal and out 'herself.'
I won't oppose your request so long as you use a strict level of proof, but I just don't think it matters. What we're trying to do is define the standards of our Mote community, not the entire internet. Nothing we do will prevent someone from doing what you're railing against, it won't even prevent it from happening here or prevent banned posters from coming back and doing it again with new names. All we are doing is keeping honest people honest and trying to house-break the rest. Don't take it too seriously.
|
 |
Go To Mote #
|
|
