|
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. 124. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 12:04:41 AM
Adam:
In the cases where we can prove it, we should take action. Or else you have sanctioned Table Talk as a dumping ground where you are ENCOURAGED to dump sensitive personal information.
Re: People going to different threads
You've got to be a little realistic here. There are only so many websites that actually matter to us. I don't know about, say, FreeRepublic, so if anybody goes there and posts my name, well, who gives a shit? What are those people going to do? They're going to see a name of a person they don't know and don't care about. It means NOTHING to them.
There are, however, websites where we Moties have begun to frequent, TT chief among them.
Now, bear the following in mind:
TT requires a real e-mail address for membership. That means that someone can POST as CalGal, but they're going to have to use their REAL e-mail to get membership. And that's where the plan falls apart, yes? The Mote staff has everybody's real email.
Can you get around this? Possibly, but I don't want to get into it, because then I'd be instructing would-be vandals on how to get away with a crime. And I suggest you don't tell ME how to get away with it, either, for the same reason.
Many people are computer illiterate and don't know how to fuck around with shit like this. So for that subset of people, at least, the POSSIBILITY that their TT emails and Mote emails can be connected will be a deterrent.
I do not want to take away this deterrent.
Now, what about more sophisticated computer users? Okay, maybe the deterrent isn't as strong. But I don't see the need to take away the deterrent entirely, and from the less sophisticated users.
REPEAT: DO NOT TELL ME HOW I CAN GET AROUND THIS PROBLEM. I don't want to know, and I don't really want you to instruct others on how to get around it.
125. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 12:08:39 AM
If you want to discuss this angle further, please e-mail me at Kevin_Blackthorne@yahoo.com. 126. AdamSelene - 9/18/1999 12:12:59 AM Acer,
Like I said - I won't oppose your request. We disagree as to how important it is, but that's ok. 127. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 12:14:04 AM
. What we're trying to do is define the standards of our Mote community, not the entire internet.
We CAN set the standards for membership in the Mote. And we CAN and SHOULD demand that members not be so psychotic as to maliciously and illegally post people's private information on the Internet.
I, for one, do not believe that's really a terribly high burden for us to meet. 128. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 12:19:40 AM
Adam:
I think it's important in this sense: Take away the possibility of Mote action-- take it away COMPLETELY -- and you are giving express permission to out, say, someone's HIV positive status on Table Talk.
And consider this: Even somebody who posts under an untraceable e-mail address might just send an e-mail to a friend to tip that friend off.
And that friend COULD rat, couldn't they? They could send the e-mail to Wabbit, right?
To me, your policy seems chiefly aimed at removing any fear of retribution from the minds of would-be vandals. And I don't see why you'd want to remove that fear.
It's a small deterrent. It's all we've got. Leave it be. 129. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 1:15:20 AM
Jay:
You've asked if I agreed with this language:
"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. But if both elements are present, the punishment should be banning."
Here's the answer: Yes and No.
It depends on what we mean by "malicious." My definition of "malicious" is simply this: The poster in question KNEW the information was not to be outed. The right legal word is "knowing," but I keep avoiding that, because I don't want to have to explain it.
If you're taking "malicious" to mean something more, like "done coolly, not in the heat of passion," then I disagree.
I have to make this distinction because you keep saying that what Seguine done was not done "maliciously." I don't know how you're defining the word to come to that conclusion. To me, it's a question of: Did the poster KNOW she shouldn't reveal the information? I.e., does she have any affirmative defense like "confusion about whether the information was actually kosher public information"? 130. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 1:15:47 AM
If you're defining "maliciously" as meaning something else, like you've got to have some specific nefarious plan involving outing the party, I sure the hell don't mean that. And I don't think "heat of the moment" is a defense, either. And I don't think "posting the information to prove a point" is a defense, either.
Who the hell cares WHY you did it? If you knew it was wrong, I don't see how some kind of intent to prove a point should mitigate the violation.
Let's face it: Seguine posted that information to hurt CalGal. She sure the hell wasn't trying to help her. And, as I think you've noted, there was no reason to provide a well-thought out cipher to prove her point. She could have said, "If I posted that your name was, say, Darlene Chickentits" or any other made-up name.
I only define "maliciously" as meaning "not done cluelessly." For example, let's take the case of Cellar Door. Let's pretend his real name isn't public information (it is), but that it's an Open Secret, as it were. If I refered to Cellar Door by his real name, under the mistaken but understandable impression that it IS public knowledge-- well then, that to me is "not maliciously."
131. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 1:16:42 AM
But if I DO know that Cellar Door's name is PRIVATE, and I refer to it anyway, FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER-- that to me is "maliciously," or really "knowingly," which is the definition I give to it.
And one last point: This policy is pretty clear. It's not exactly a NEW thing in cyberworld. So sure, I'd agree that if a revelation were NOT "deliberate and malicious," maybe a lesser penalty than banning is appropriate.
BUT-- and this is a big BUT-- I would also hope that we're all fairly realistic adults here, and that we're not going to bend over backwards trying to believe implausible stories like "I didn't know you had a privacy policy here; I didn't read the RoE" or "Jeeze, I thought everybody knew that Ace of Spades was actually teen hearthrob Andrew McCarthy!"
This depends on the quality of information. If Bubbaette accidentally refers to Adrianne's child by his/her real name (assuming she knows, and assuming it's not really "Fang," as she calls him/her), I think most of us would be willing to believe that was an accident.
But come on. When you reveal an anonymous poster's full name, or when you reveal someone's address, it's pretty implausible it's just some kind of "brainfart." It's not terribly believable that you just-- accidentally-- referred to someone by their FULL NAME. No one refers to anyone by their full name. I've almost slipped a few times and written CalGal's real first name instead of "Cal," but I sure the fuck didn't almost "fuck up" and write out her first and last name. And I sure the fuck didn't write it in code and invite people to puzzle it out.
That shit doesn't "just happen" in a Space Cadet moment. 132. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 1:25:55 AM
And on the point of "maliciously," I'd give a lot of credence to what the VICTIM thinks about the "malice" of it. If I accidentally write Niner's first name, I think he's a pretty good judge of whether I did it maliciously, or whether or not it's plausible that, since I had just been writing him e-mails using his real first name, I had just fucked up and written his real name in a Mote post.
If I "accidentally" write out AdamSelene's name, he might very well believe it was done with "malice," since I shouldn't KNOW his name, as he never told me.
And if I "accidentallly" write out a mortal enemy's real name-- let's say MsIvortyTower, though she's not such an enemy at all-- then MsIT would, I suspect, have VERY STRONG reasons to suspect malice, as 1) she never told me that name 2) we're not chummy; I have no plausible reason to be getting friendly on a real-name basis with her and 3) we've exchanged angry words in the past.
In sum, it stinks of disbelief. It simply doesn't pass the smell test that I DIDN'T do it deliberately and maliciously. Without some plausible explanation that the victim accepts-- and here's where we get back to victim clemency again-- it seems to me a case for banning.
Now, if I can convince my victim that it was just indeed "all a terrible accident," then let her tell Wabbit that it wasn't malicious, and let me off with a one week suspension. But if MsIT doesn't buy my bullshit, and I expect she wouldn't, then ban my ass. 133. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 1:28:23 AM
Sorry. I didn't mean "one week suspension" in that last paragraph. I meant "lesser suspension."
Personally, in a victim clemency case like that, I'd let the victim decide. If, without clemency, I could be banned forever, it seems to make sense that the victim could set whatever lesser penalty she deemed fit. A week, a month, a year, never again in the Politics thread, whatever.
|
 |
Go To Mote #
|
|
