|
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. 148. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 6:23:48 AM
Incidentally, Arky, we can have a debate about whether Politics should be toned down, if you like. Just because I assumed it wouldn't be much toned down certainly doesn't mean we can't change it. I'd just prefer an actual debate and majority agreement before that happened.
I'd argue for keeping it at about the level it was over in the Fray, but I'm sure people may disagree. 149. CalGal - 9/18/1999 6:28:42 AM Some comments on the policy debate:
The decision should not be left up the "victim". Very bad idea. I can't tell you how angry and upset I was over the information being posted--especially when I realized how much more explicit it had been than I originally thought. Should she have been banned? I don't know. What I do know, is that if she'd been banned at my request, it would have made everything much worse. That pressure overrode any personal considerations I might have.
Was I "cowed"? (a dreadful word) I don't know. I can say safely that I felt the results of my requesting a ban would have been far worse than doing what I did. I do not need the kind of shit that would have been dealt.
I don't think that any "victim" should have to deal with that. There are always people who will sneer and say that someone "deserved" it or did something to upset the offender, or somehow participated in the act.
Also, leaving it up to the "victim" creates a potential for considerable inequity.
No. Let it be up to the "judge".
I also think the standard should be as objective as possible. I like Ace's suggested change from "malicious" to "intentional".
150. arkymalarky - 9/18/1999 6:35:08 AM How I'd feel about it as a participant and how I'd feel as someone who shares some responsibility of hosting is different. As a participant I just scroll past, or whatever, and would always accept the decision of the moderator. My view on censorship is that anything that is maliciously directed at or meant to inflame a particular poster or type of poster (as in racial slurs, etc) should be verboten. I think people who set out to cause trouble with those methods should not be tolerated. The rest I don't have much opinion on, though if extreme vulgarity permeated the forum as a whole I would find somewhere else to be. That's a non-issue, though, imo. 151. arkymalarky - 9/18/1999 6:36:36 AM Sorry, 150 was to Ace's 148. I agree with Cal, though. 152. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 6:47:29 AM
Cal:
Well, I only suggested the "victim" thing because the victim can always ask for clemency, so the victim's willingness to do so will be a factor.
And, you know, I want to get away from what will inevitably happen: The supporters of the violater will claim that it wasn't "intentional," and the supporters of the aggrieved party will claim it was. To cut through that inevitable shitstorm, I thought maybe we should give the victim's thoughts on the offense some weight.
But it was just a thought. Didn't really think it through.
I would be personally disgusted, however, if someone who makes these decisions ended up "believing" some implausible story the violator tells and thereby letting the violator off the hook. We know how it works: One need only claim "It wasn't clear, yadda yadda yadda" and suddenly we're talking about warnings again.
I don't know how to avoid that. I think that's why all along I've favored a group making these most-important decisions, rather than a single person. 153. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 6:54:22 AM
I also think that people are more willing to take unpleasant, but necessary, action in groups.
If it's up to just one person, a person may tend more to feel the weight of the decision on his shoulders, and may err on the side of mercy too much. The whole "Who am I to judge?" thing, the feeling of "How can I impose this penalty on someone?"
Whereas with a group voting, the responsibility is more diffuse, and people will more likely decide what it is right, rather than simply taking the convenient, tempting "let me just let them go and let God sort out the consequences" route. They know the unpleasant thing won't come to pass UNLESS a majority of the group is also convinced. That's why we have juries.
|
