|
1408. bubbaette - 7/5/2001 3:57:15 AM It appears to me that Rosie Pot has been exposing another motier's name here. 1409. PsychProf - 7/5/2001 4:19:56 AM Hahahaha...hoisted by his own petard. 1410. Ms. No - 7/5/2001 4:30:03 AM RosettaStone,
This is not the place to discuss Table Talk's policies or infractions of their rules. It is for Mote Policies.
It is not the Policy of the Mote to police other internet forums. However we might feel about what takes place in those forums we have no authority over them. Were it even possible to police the entire Internet according to the rules we've established here, we have neither the time nor the resources to undertake such a monumental task.
Were CharlieL's actions in Table Talk deplorable? Yes they were. Should he be punished here for an infraction at another forum? Should you be? That is not our policy and you should be no less glad then he is for it. 1411. JudithAtHome - 7/5/2001 4:40:27 AM What about Rose posting Charlies name here? I thought that wasn't allowed...something he learned in another forum being posted here? He called for it to be deleted so he knows it's wrong... 1412. Ms. No - 7/5/2001 5:05:36 AM Call me naive, but I can believe that it was an honest mistake. If it was a deliberate action there's really no way for me to know for certain.
In any case, CharlieL is in the position of having revealed his real name as well. I don't know that he has ever done so in the Mote or whether he's linked to his band website where his name is posted from the Mote, but it is not a secret in the sense that it can be revealed.
However, Charlie has never gone by his full name nor has he ever been referred to by that name in forum and the use of it is inappropriate without his explicit consent---hence my deletion of the post. 1413. RosettaStone - 7/5/2001 5:31:20 AM Revealing my name is not nearly as important as the fact that CharlieL has gone to the effort through the internet to find my home address and daughter's telephone number and published it regularly to punish me politically.
Because of him, hundreds of people at TT know it now and regularly use it.
And because I bring this up here, warning people, I'm threaten with being banned.
Even in the Tabled Talk thread, this subject is being edited out.
1414. Ms. No - 7/5/2001 7:11:21 AM RosettaStone has once again been suspended for two weeks for brining up this tireless subject outside the Policy thread against express instructions not to do so.
He brings it up not in an effort to warn people but in an effort to create discord and as such he will be suspended every time he does it. If upon his return he cannot or will not behave in a manner that is less destructive to this forum he will be banned permanently. 1415. don s. - 7/5/2001 7:12:26 AM And because I bring this up here, warning people, I'm threaten [sic] with being banned.
Well, you're a warning about something, that's for sure. 1416. don s. - 7/5/2001 7:12:42 AM Cousins marrying, maybe? 1417. RosettaStone - 7/5/2001 11:59:28 AM So talking about TT in the Tabled Talk thread is off topic?
1418. mgleason - 7/17/2001 10:54:21 PM 2320. Indiana Jones - 7/18/01 2:36:22 PM
Irv: I don't intend to discuss this further here, there, or anywhere--other than through private email. If there is something else you want me to do, you can post it wherever you like or send me your request.
mgleason:
Communication via the moderators is just as much a 'Mote channel' as posting in the forum itself.
This is none of the Mote's affair. CalGal made it clear beforehand that I was not to speak for the Mote and that my views did not represent those of the Mote. Her pronouncement should be sufficient, given all that has occurred, to make it clear without anyone else weighing in, what the Mote's position is.
You and Irv have made your views known publicly. IMO that is sufficient to clear up any misunderstanding. Be that as it may, if you wish me to correct msgreer personally of any misunderstanding you think I have conveyed to her about your respective positions, I will certainly do so.
You made it 'the Mote's business' Indiana, when, in the text of your e-mail, you listed Irv and myself as being among those who had posted support for msgreer in the Mote. That is an untruth. CalGal's opinions don't enter into this one way or the other; you purported to speak for us as members of the Mote.
We attempted to handle this through a moderator so as to spare the feelings of everyone involved; your post in Notices and Queries signalled your unwillingness to proceed in that fashion, which would have been much the simplest solution. I imagine that there is now no need for you to write to msgreer to rectify this situation, as someone is bound to notify her, if she does not read of it herself.
1419. Indiana Jones - 7/17/2001 11:11:48 PM mgleason: I note your opinion but do not agree with it. 1420. mgleason - 7/17/2001 11:15:41 PM It is not an opinion, but a true recounting of the events that transpired. 1421. Indiana Jones - 7/17/2001 11:17:47 PM I note your opinion that this is a matter for the Mote Policies thread, but do not agree with that contention. 1422. mgleason - 7/17/2001 11:42:26 PM As I noted earlier, we attempted to handle this through the moderators in lieu of discussing the matter in this or any other thread, but that was apparently unacceptable to you.
Here is the applicable part of your original post:
2183. Indiana Jones - 7/11/01 6:36:29 PM
In accordance with 2182 above, I propose to send msgreer an email inviting her to reconsider her (apparent) decision of leaving the Mote and abandoning her post in the Health Thread.
I intend to affix to that post the "signatures" of all signees of the Age of Urquhart, as well as her two co-hosts, Jenerator, my own, and anyone else who wishes to email me (indianajones@resourceful.com) their desire to be included, or just posts it here. (If you think I'm going to include your name and don't want it included, do either as well.)
It never occurred to me that you would be including me in your e-mail, since I did not meet the criteria you listed. The fact that you purported to speak for a subset of the Mote's membership makes it a Mote matter. What makes it a serious one is that you did so, in my case, at least, without any sort of consent, stated or implied. 1423. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/18/2001 12:03:05 AM Indy:
Wrt your post in Notices... I don't know of any specific actions you could take, but I'd like to know how I ended up on that list, too... a list you decribed as affixing our "signatures" in the post mgleason quotes above. I saw the post above, and, though I didn't agree with the effort, I also didn't feel like e-mailing you to tell you to leave me out, and I didn't want to post, to avoid making this a major issue. That's why I was surprised to find that my name was on the list, but most of the AoU signees were not. 1424. Indiana Jones - 7/18/2001 12:05:38 AM Maria: It is my prerogative to decline to discuss my personal correspondence--real or purported--with Mote moderators unless it is sent by me to them. Regardless of whether you think it is an issue for their jurisdiction, I don't.
Again I will point out that they have said that they don't intend to discuss here their email regarding policy or other Mote issues, and unlike me, they are responsible for speaking for the Mote. Hence, I cannot fathom why you or anyone else would think this matter involving email exchanges between non-moderators should be handled differently.
(Because so many people here see hidden motives in every action, I should point out that my reference to moderator policy above expresses no desire that they change it, but rather is to show that my attitude is in no way unreasonable or unique.) 1425. mgleason - 7/18/2001 12:19:24 AM Indiana,
It is not, however, your prerogative to take it upon yourself to speak for me as a member of this forum. I don't know whether this is an explicit policy violation or not, but it certainly comes close. It is for that reason, among others, that I attempted to have this issue mediated by a moderator, because it goes beyond 'personal correspondence.'
You are conflating several things when you speak of the moderators having 'said that they don't intend to discuss here their email regarding policy or other Mote issues.' I believe that they have said that they are under no obligation to do so. As an unwitting party to your action, it was my prerogative to make it public when you declined to accede to the request for rectification as proposed by one of the moderators. 1426. Indiana Jones - 7/18/2001 12:43:32 AM Maria: You are certainly free to state whatever you wish publicly. I am not compelled to do likewise. 1427. mgleason - 7/18/2001 12:54:44 AM When you involve me in your actions, and refuse to resolve the matter discreetly, I am not out of line in asking for an explanation, which you have yet to provide.
|
