|
1437. arkymalarky - 7/18/2001 4:21:54 AM I don't think an apology is very useful wrt moving on if Indy remedies the situation with Irv and Maria, unless they request it as a necessary part of the remedy. An acknowledgement that people's id's should not be attached to statements (they were not attached as signatures to the email) without their express permission and an assurance that it won't be done in the future might be more helpful.
I essentially agree with Pelle if the matter has been settled to the satisfaction of Irv and Maria (except that to them it was a bit more than a simple blunder), but it's something that some might want to review in terms of the current policy, which is how I read Cal's post and why I posted the one following. 1438. CalGal - 7/18/2001 4:23:42 AM Indy,
This isn't an issue of email, but forgery and fraud (small case "f" in both instances).
Email is certainly not an issue for the Mote. Is forgery? Given that it didn't happen on the Mote, I tend to agree that as distasteful as your behavior is, it may not be a matter for the Mote. While it definitely feels like a privacy violation, I suppose that if we tolerate someone who posts a phone number in TT we can equally tolerate a forger who uses email.
That said, it is entirely within the rights of any Mote member to complain about it openly, and I see no reason why they can't publish the email in its entirety online without your consent. After all, in putting their name on it you implicitly said they wrote it. And to the extent that this means someone can regularly refer to you as a forger and a liar, you'll just have to cope. 1439. Indiana Jones - 7/18/2001 4:31:18 AM Cal: My, my, how you do go on.
Regardless of how you and others here wish to characterize it, such inflammatory language will have no effect on my decision to discuss the contents. It is none of your business. 1440. mgleason - 7/18/2001 4:38:50 AM It is my business, however, and I am due an explanation, here, since you made the matter public, Indiana. 1441. Ms. No - 7/18/2001 4:39:41 AM Arky,
An acknowledgement that people's id's should not be attached to statements (they were not attached as signatures to the email) without their express permission and an assurance that it won't be done in the future might be more helpful.
I agree.
it's something that some might want to review in terms of the current policy,
I also tend to agree with this. Long long ago we had similar problems and it was agreed upon that such things as impersonating other posters and forging emails were unacceptable. It was such a huge deal that I don't think it occurred to anyone to include it in the RoE.
At the time it would've been like saying "You're not allowed to kill other Moties" ----Kind of a big, Duh!
In light of the current situation, however, maybe we DO need such a rule to keep people from violating the privacy and identities of others in the forum.
Proposed RoE #5
Do not represent other Moties without their express knowledge and consent. 1442. CalGal - 7/18/2001 4:42:08 AM You don't have to discuss the contents, Indy. Anyone who is on the list can post it. After all, you put their name to it.
As for it not being my business--yes, actually, it is. "It" being whether or not a Mote member can forge or otherwise sign someone onto a statement in email. Thanks to your stupidity, it is now an issue for a policy discussion.
Besides, you seem not to have noticed that I am agreeing with you, for the most part.
The really irritating thing is that your asinine behavior will probably spur any number of copycats to send forgeries around. After all, you've just established that people can do anything they want in email. 1443. Indiana Jones - 7/18/2001 4:44:56 AM Proposed RoE 5: Hahahahaha. 1444. CalGal - 7/18/2001 4:48:40 AM MsNo,
The problem I have with your rule is that we wouldn't stop anyone from posting Indy's letter at TT, even if he put all those names to it. The people in question could object and say no, they don't agree. But we wouldn't--and couldn't--force him to delete it and I don't think we'd ban or suspend him for it.
So how is email any different? And how will that rule differentiate a comment like "Irv agrees with me" from putting Irv's "signature" at the bottom of a letter?
If we handle it at all, I suggest going the other way: say explicitly that email is not the Mote's jurisdiction, and that if you get group letters or any letter purporting to be from another Motie, remember to confirm the receipt of it.
Even saying that much pisses me off, though, since it will probably scare people. But then, all we're doing is spelling out what is true in any other forum. 1445. CalGal - 7/18/2001 4:49:49 AM And to forestall the inevitable objections, "we" refers to the Mote as a whole. 1446. Indiana Jones - 7/18/2001 4:51:45 AM mgleason: I will respond to you privately, as I will Irv. 1447. PelleNilsson - 7/18/2001 5:03:37 AM Please don't escalate this incident. Let's try to behave like we do IRL. This is not a democracy. It is also not a dictatorship. We don't force guys into sessions of self-criticism and self-humiliation. 1448. CalGal - 7/18/2001 5:20:55 AM Pelle,
I myself haven't asked anything at all from Indy. As for behaving as we do IRL, are you suggesting that the real world is copacetic about using someone's name without their permission? Things must be different in Sweden. 1449. mgleason - 7/18/2001 5:22:08 AM Pelle, I did my level best, as did Irv, to keep this quiet. What we asked for as a remedy, through a third party, was that the e-mail be amended to reflect the inclusion of only those individuals who had given their consent. That's it - no mea culpas, no public wearing of a hair shirt. We reacted in a temperate manner, even though both of us regard the use of our names without our consent as a serious matter.
That proposal was unacceptable, apparently, and a public notice was placed directing us to contact Indiana directly with our concerns. Believing, as we do, that this is a Mote matter, we took the matter public. This folderol is exactly what we tried to avoid from the beginning, and could have been accomplished very easily. I won't be chastised for having done the right thing. 1450. PelleNilsson - 7/18/2001 5:59:17 AM I'm not chastisingng you, Maria, nothing can be further from my mind. Indy has done wrong. Nobody has risen to his support. What I'm suggesting is that there comes a moment when enough is enough. 1451. Ms. No - 7/18/2001 6:11:28 AM CalGal,
Ordinarily email wouldn't be any different, But as I believe I have stated we're not talking about just any email. We're talking about an email for which the idea was publicly presented and discussed in the Mote and which claimed to have been "signed" by a number of Moties.
If you want to send a private email then send a private email. Don't send an email by committee.
As for an explicit statement in the RoE that "Anyone who wants to can use your name and identity outside the Mote forum for whatever reason he likes and suffer no consequences within the forum". Well, I suppose this is currently true, but that people are going to dislike it immensely.
I don't personally have a problem with changing Mote policy to make exceptions for certain privacy violations that happen outside the Mote. In the case of CharlieL, I would have had no problem changing our policy to ban members who reveal such private information in other public forums as he revealed about RosettaStone. I also have no problem suspending people for forging email identities. Do you recall what the outcome was of Squids' forgery escapades?
The reason that I see these as legitimate exceptions is because they cause turmoil here in the Mote and also because there is no reason to do any of these things EXCEPT to cause turmoil. I feel that it's an abuse of the Mote community and therefore an abuse of the Mote.
1452. Indiana Jones - 7/18/2001 6:40:18 AM Neither Irv nor mgleason contacted me directly. To accept Ms. No's intervention would have been to recognize the Mote's jurisdiction in this matter, which I don't.
I think doing one's "level best to keep this quiet" would have been to approach me directly. However, that was not done, but as mgleason and Irv have a grievance with me, I don't expect that they acted with my personal preference utmost in mind (nor do I hold that against them under the circumstances). My post in N&Q mentioned no one by name or described any other specifics, leaving to mgleason and Irv the decision whether they wished to respond there or by email.
Regarding any acceptance or rejection of a proposal by them to me, I suggest that they reread my post and my email, which I assume Ms. No forwarded to them without alteration:
I will be happy to correct to msgreer any mistaken impression my actual message gave of their views that they wish corrected, should they make their wishes known to me directly.
I am not "chastising" them for the course they took. It is perfectly within their right to involve the World Court if they like. But if someone wants anything from me--be it clarification, explanation, or even apology--they are more likely to get it by asking me, rather than contacting an extraneous third person.
Especially in the case of the last--i.e., apology--I would think that a brute force extraction would render such useless. And in this specific case, I see no such brute force to which I will respond.
1453. Indiana Jones - 7/18/2001 6:40:29 AM Finally, as arky has clearly posted above, there was no "forgery" of "signatures." My representation of other Motiers views, while perhaps displeasing to them as partly or entirely inaccurate, were "signed" only by me. There was no use of the "we" pronoun, only the "I," nor any other rhetorical device to indicate that the words contained within were other than my own. The idea that we must get permission from other Motiers to characterize their views under our own hand would mean dozens of community standards violations every day. And email I have received including from those involved in this discussion demonstrates that others do the same thing--though there is always the possibility that permission was "explicitly granted" in each and every case.
While CalGal may have not have seen the actual email, Ms. No has. Anyone who has seen it and characterizes it as a forgery is being dishonest. 1454. arkymalarky - 7/18/2001 6:41:39 AM In the case of CharlieL, I would have had no problem changing our policy to ban members who reveal such private information in other public forums as he revealed about RosettaStone.
I do think if that becomes the case that it should only be with a formal complaint and the act verified by at least one moderator, since we all know how certain embellishments of molehills have been known to occur in the past just to be an annoyance. 1455. mgleason - 7/18/2001 7:09:13 AM Indiana,
To Pelle's undoubted relief, this is my last post on this matter.
Your post in Notices and Queries was by way of being a thrown gauntlet, the principle of not 'recognizing the Mote's jurisdiction' apparently taking precedence over the principle of not mischaracterizing the positions of others, and not using them to buttress your own position without their consent.
The e-mail you received from Ms. No identified Irv and myself by name, quoted from our letters to her, and stated very clearly the remedy we sought. Yet because we did not approach you directly, you would not rectify a situation in which you were clearly in the wrong. Indeed, you continue to defend your untenable position because we did not ask you in the appropriate manner. I can only imagine that in your mind, this would involve much obsequiousness and tugging of forelocks, assuming we had the audacity to ask it at all.
A very strange code, that, which places your ego above honor. 1456. Ms. No - 7/18/2001 7:29:08 AM Indy,
No I have not seen the actual mail. My name wasn't on it and it wasn't addressed to me, therefore it was not copied to me. Nor did I forward a copy of your email to Maria or Irving as it was not addressed to them.
I informed them at your request that you desired for them to contact you directly and privately but you completely undermined any of that by posting a public notice about the incident in N&Q.
The truth is that you and you alone are responsible for violating privacy. You have only yourself to blame for having been unwise enough to add their names without their consent and then when approached about it in a private manner to have climbed upon your clay-footed high-horse and started issuing decrees about what is and isn't private and how people with legitimate complaints against you should or shouldn't behave.
Your actions in this matter have been reprehensible and you full well know it.
|
