|
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. 134. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 1:36:00 AM
Perhaps we can jettison the "malice" requirement as redundant. And maybe "deliberately" isn't the right word, as any time you write out words, it's "deliberate" (intended).
I just mean the standard should be "you knew what you were doing; it was no mistake."
Maybe we should just say: Intentional revelation of another Moter's sensitive personal information is grounds for immediate banning. If the revelation was not intentional-- i.e., it was accidental, or the poster revealed the knowledge in the mistaken belief the information had been revealed by the Moter previously-- may be grounds for a lesser penalty. However, even repeated unintentional revelations of sensitive personal information may also be grounds for banning." 135. God - 9/18/1999 2:30:45 AM I think Jay, JJ and Wabbit should be in charge of this issue. They're the 3 members of the 'high council' who have impressed me most with their thoughts on this issue. 136. God - 9/18/1999 2:31:55 AM I DON'T think that just because Ace has made way too many posts and has been running around threatening to resign from the Mote that his opinion should be given undue weight. 137. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 2:41:52 AM
God:
No one gives me more weight, Cochise. You don't have to worry about that.
I am thinking about the issue and trying to persuade people, as people do in places like this. Not you, of course. You know, normal people.
And I will resign if the Mote doesn't institute some kind of rational privacy-protection policy. Simply because I won't feel safe here. 138. glendajean - 9/18/1999 2:55:40 AM Who knew there was so much to discuss about such a simple proposition. Don't post personal stuff, particularly names, in the Mote, of other posters without their permission.
In the fray, I only know of one person who did it, and he did it maliciously to hurt someone. He got banned. He immediately came back under another name and he did it again with much gusto. He got banned again. Supposedly he came back again as someone else, but he didn't do the name placing again. I think, in this case, the system worked.
We need authority that can move fairly swiftly to enforce the rules. The rules ought to reflect some sense of deflecting severe meanness, cruelty, offensiveness.
The threads shouldn't all have the same standards. From the beginning of the Mote, we talked about different levels of civility. I've always assumed that in H&G we wanted to keep it informal and polite, but that other threads would be at different standards.
I WILL SUPPORT THE SUSPENSION OR BANNING OF ANYBODY WHO REVEALS NAMES OF OTHER POSTERS AND I WILL SUPPORT THE ENFORCEMENT OF RULES AGAINST ANYBODY WHO TRIES TO DISRUPT DISCUSSIONS IN THREADS WITH PERSONAL ATTACKS. (Sorry about the caps, I wanted to emphasize this).
139. arkymalarky - 9/18/1999 3:08:23 AM On the Politics thread: I personally don't feel comfortable having my online name as host to a discussion thread that gets as vulgar as the Politics thread at the Fray did. I haven't even looked at the thread here in the last couple of days, but I saw that some posts had been moved to the PlayPen. I haven't spoken to 109, but he and I are supposed to take over hosting next week. The language, etc, doesn't personally bother me, but if my name's attached (I know it's just an online name, but this is *me* on the net, and I care about that) I feel connected to what goes on and responsible for the content. 140. God - 9/18/1999 3:13:51 AM Then don't host. Why would you assume better behavior here than at the Fray? 141. arkymalarky - 9/18/1999 3:28:07 AM I don't. I'm talking about the level of vulgarity, not behavior per se. 109 and I were discussing cohosting before, and just like the rest of the thread hosts here, guidelines are a relevant part of our consideration as hosts. I wouldn't host it if everyone else felt the guidelines should allow extreme off-topic vulgarity. Again, I'd be fine participating and I don't have a problem with what any individual thread host wants to do, but I'm speaking strictly for myself as a thread host. 142. God - 9/18/1999 3:36:37 AM I don't think you have any business hosting a thread if you expect different behavior (be it vulgarity-level or whatever) than what was experienced in the Fray in the same thread.
143. God - 9/18/1999 3:41:09 AM Well, that's not exactly right, you can expect whatever the hell you want, but if you don't think you've be willing to TOLERATE the same type of behavior, you shouldn't host. 144. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 3:43:46 AM
Ark:
We can debate this, but before we go changing the character of Politics, I WOULD like to debate it, rather than simply change it because you're not comfortable with it. We COULD always get a different host. I don't mean that disrespectfully; I just mean that if you and Politics are a bad fit, Politics shouldn't be the thing we change with debating that first.
I'm not saying politics should be a profanity-fest. But I am suggesting that we never discussed toning it down from the Fray, and I think we ought to discuss that first if that's what you want to do. 145. arkymalarky - 9/18/1999 3:59:26 AM I know, Ace. I'm not at all offended. I didn't offer to cohost, though I'm glad to do it. And I'm not referring to the typical political mudslinging or dirty words, but stuff that goes way beyond that. I feel like I should talk with 109 about it and he's not available right now, I don't think. One possibility is that I could just help him out where he needs it and he could be sole host with all the decision-making wrt guidelines that goes along with it. 146. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 4:17:18 AM
Incidentally, we now have "Son of God" here in addition to "God." What's next?
The "scads of offensive handles" which would NEVER show up here seem to be beginning to show up. 147. God - 9/18/1999 4:52:43 AM Ace
Wasn't it you who was making fun of Res' unnecessary wordiness yesterday? Talk about blatant hypocrisy. Diarrhea mouth.
|
