|
233. Spudboy - 9/19/1999 11:01:24 PM Now, I wouldn’t wish what happened to Jenerator on anyone, even though I have no great affection for her. God/Cat in the Hat was obviously being malicious, and I can’t imagine anything more humiliating than that kind of exposure. His behavior was so egregious that I completely concur with the way that Wabbit handled it. But I like letting the moderators have the leeway to use their own judgment on who gets banned if such a drastic step needs to be taken. I think anyone taking a balanced view of Seguine will admit that she in no way deserves to be banned -- unless, of course, she repeats the behavior or has a subsequent egregious transgression. A warning should suffice.
This may make the system more subjective than some here would like, but I don’t think you’re going to be able to escape that. Ultimately, someone’s going to have make subjective judgments about violations and levels of egregiousness. And an automatic ban, I think, opens us up to precisely the biggest problem that I saw develop in the Fray: Someone gets a bug up his ass about another Fraygrant, concocts a violation on flimsy pretenses, and then stamps about and jumps and shouts and threatens to turn blue in the face until something’s done about it ... and succeeds in getting that other Fraygrant banned. That scenario, frankly, was the biggest turn-off in all my time in the Fray -- even more than getting my name used there. And now we’re seeing it play out again. The reason I raised the Thomas situation again the other day was simple: I don’t believe that the two chief complainants here are pursuing this out of their fervent belief that people’s anonymity should be protected (else they’d have come to my defense, rather than the perpetrator’s, when it happened in more egregious circumstances). The entire tone and mode of behavior has indicated an underlying vindictiveness toward Seguine. If they succeed in getting her banned, you can kiss off the participation of people like me. (cont'd) 234. Spudboy - 9/19/1999 11:02:56 PM I have been, as I noted previously, lurking for awhile now, mulling over whether or not to join in. My time constraints are severe right now, but I’m looking at some open time beginning in November, and I might be persuaded to put some energy into this place for awhile. I’m watching this scenario play out carefully, because it’s going to determine my decision.
I really only want to participate if we can be a genuine community, which requires openness and a desire to bring in new blood. At a time when The Mote should be building its community, and trying to bring fresh people in, trying to be at least somewhat welcoming in nature, I find that the bulk of the energy being expended here is aimed at driving people out. The most prominent discussion here has been about tearing the place apart. It’s really too bad. This forum had such promise.
I’ll check back in November and see if it’s gotten any better. If it’s still here. 235. AdamSelene - 9/19/1999 11:26:47 PM Spudboy,
I agree with virtually all of your sentiments - I think the anonymity is valuable in letting us express alternate opinions and other playful aspects of ourselves. I'm not nearly so radical in real life (believe it or not) but in this forum it's save to be extreme and see how far you can take someting. It would be a lot less fun without it. My only slight disagreement is your expectation that the Mote will turn into something that you can come back to... It might not do that unless people like you are willing to invest a little time now during the shaping period. Not that I'm helping all that much myself, but it's true nonetheless. 236. pellenilsson - 9/20/1999 12:19:24 AM Spudboy
These are good posts. I agree with you. There are no doubt people who are in the public eye in one way or the other and who would like to argue from a purely personal point of view and with more abandon.
And I would submit that these are persons whom we would like to see here.
I post under my real name but that has nothing to do with principles. I didn't know any better when I signed up the first time and then I thought, who would like to mess around with a guy from Sweden, an odd man out in this forum? So I never bothered to change. 237. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 12:54:06 AM
Hello? 238. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 12:55:01 AM But banning? Give me a break! Seguine has a long and worthy record of being a civil contributor to the debate in this online community, and I don’t think a single intemperate mistake should obliterate that.
Once again, this gets into the bullshit "I like the person who committed the violation so she gets to commit bannable offenses with impunity" territory.
If you all are going to circle your wagons around your buddy Seguine and pretend what she did wasn't malicious, or that she just "didn't know" that she was supposed to do it, fine. That's a separate argument. But FUTURE intentional revelations of sensitive information should be grounds for immediate banning, first time or not, "valued contributor" or not, "editor of the Sun's Eye" or not, no warnings, sayanora, auf wiedersehen, aloha, goodbye.
239. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 12:55:13 AM
Nor should it obliterate the fact that she happens to be the editor/publisher of the magazine that’s kind enough to host us
If this is to be the rule, put it in the RoE so everyone is on notice not to argue with Adrianne, Seguine, etc., as they are allowed to break the rules with impunity.
Incidentally, what Cat in the Hat did, if I understand it correctly (and I'm only relying on his say so), was far less egregious than what Seguine did. I don't like "God," I do not consider him a "valuable contributor," and I LOVE Jenerator. Well, not love, but like a lot. Nevertheless, his "revelations" are simply a lesser offense than revealing a full name.
And yet, because God is "not valued" and Seguine is "valued," Seg gets a "warning" and God gets a ban.
God's penalty, as it stands now, of a two week suspension is in the ballpark of being fair (if I understand what he did correctly). I'd prefer a month, myself, but it's in the ballpark, at least).
A "warning" for revealing an entire name is obscene. If everyone wants this obscenity to stand, fine. But I don't want this obscenity ever repeated.
240. JudithAtHome - 9/20/1999 1:46:34 AM God has posted in TT that he is through with the Mote and has resigned. Then he goes on to trash Jen yet again and show his own rather unique take on reality. 241. KuligintheHooligan - 9/20/1999 2:22:51 AM Does it strike anybody as "odd" the assumed lack of trust in this forum? I guess what I am saying is, if you trust lowlifes that will come back later and dump all sorts of personal information about you, what does that say about you? We can all condemn 'God' all we want to, but Jen's choice of "friends" wasn't the wisest either it seems.
I guess what I am saying is, you reap what you sow in a sense. If you choose untrustworthy people as friends, be prepared to have it backfire on you in the future.
Now what has happened is he has been "forced" to dump even more information about the situation (in TT) than he ever did in the Mote! And there isn't a darn thing anybody can do about it. But, if we had just ignored his posts, he may not have said much more at all.
I really don't know. I am just "thinking out loud" here.
I also have a question about this personal information stuff. Let's say Ace comes in and accuses me of having a homosexual relationship with elliot803. Of course, that isn't true at all, but is a FALSE accusation like that one also cause for banning? Because false accusations can be just as damaging as true ones. 242. PsychProf - 9/20/1999 2:30:14 AM How come some Moters get to be two people(see list)...can we out one of them? 243. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 2:30:40 AM
CalGal wasn't Seguine's friend and didn't "trust" her with any information.
False accusations really oughtn't garner too stiff a penalty, especially if the accusation is made against an anonymous poster. A false accusation against Cellar should be considered more serious, since he's "outed" and such an accusation is, indeed, libelous. A false accusation against an anonymous poster isn't quite such a big deal. CalGal is now in an itermediate category, thanks to Seguine, as a whole raft of people now know who she is.
This is an issue that simply isn't amenable to bright-line rules. One has to separate opinions ("Cellar is an idiot") from false factual accusations ("Cellar is a straight man pretending to be gay in order to be accepted by the gay community, the only community which watches the films he reviews").
Decisions in this area are necessarily much more subjective than the types of revelations we've been talking about. 244. CoralReef - 9/20/1999 2:38:29 AM What I didn't understand about the inoffensiveness of handles debate was this: the fray used to have some really out-there handles, like "Stinky Pecker" was one memorable one. A claim has been made that the Mote is starting from the same point as the fray, but that doesn't jibe with the handles rule. 245. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 2:42:54 AM
Coral:
Well, JJ has said he "doesn't mind" sexually-tilted handles.
I do, but JJ, who's making these decisions, is apparently adhering to the Fray's old standards, then. 246. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 2:54:06 AM A whole host of people knew who CalGal was before, as by her own admission that about 10% of the old fray didn't know her name. That doesn't make what happened less of a violation, but I don't see why it should be represented differently than reality. A note: Seguine did apologize, incidentally. When she chooses to return I'd imagine she, if she feels it's worthwhile, can explain on her own terms why she isn't posting now and why she did what she did. All I feel compelled to point out now is that she hasn't been banned, or even tossed in the 'sin bin', and she still isn't posting. She did receive a warning and rebuke (which is something I'm glad to see that Ace is finally acknowledging). I'd also like to question why we shouldn't take past actions into consideration when we judge these sorts of things. After all, judges do. I, myself, see no problem at all in analyzing the cases of, say, God and Seguine on different bases -- one has acted as a relentless troublemaker in the forum and has yet to see fit to actually contribute. The other has contributed a great deal to both forums.
247. CalGal - 9/20/1999 2:54:40 AM There are a few points that some people seem to miss, over and over again:
- The rules say don't release private information. I am incredibly tired of people determining their reaction based on how they feel about the rule. You don't like the rule? Support a change. Until then, try not to dismiss violations based on your own personal feelings about them. Particularly amusing is Spud's support of the anonymity--but then his determination that his violation was worse than mine, because I'm not a public figure. Alas. The rules don't distinguish. Perhaps they should, but until then, one violation is as important as another. And I did support Spud on that, once I found out that Irv had deleted the post. I wouldn't have had any issue if ThomasD had been banned.
- I'm with Ace all the way on this nonsense of the identity of the poster mattering. If we're going to do that, then I agree that we should announce this in the RoE. Seguine can pretty much do anything she wants, because she's the magazine editor. I can announce coral's name and everyone will just delete the post and look the other way because I built the butterscotch bar. It's absurd.
For those of you who think that Seguine just overstepped the bounds in a heated debate--in the first place, it wasn't heated at all. In the second place, suppose it had been Irv instead of me, articulating the policy. Would Seguine have posted the easy to translate cipher of his name?
No. Nor would she have done the same thing if it had been Wabbit.
Let's not pretend it wasn't personal, intentional, and done to cause damage. You want to keep her? Fine. I wouldn't have supported a banning anyway, but I think a suspension would have been in order. But these descriptions of what she did are just so many rationalizations.248. CoralReef - 9/20/1999 2:54:42 AM Another Motier said elsewhere a very good point: the fact that this "event" occurred during a fast and wide ranging debate on censorship/handles/post content is a huge mitigating factor.
I know you'll disagree, Ace, as you have to earn your commission as CG's counsel, but it's true. 249. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 2:56:13 AM Yes, Coral, and Aromatic Pudenda and a whole host of Squids creations (and, of course, I believe a few by other people...) 250. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 2:59:39 AM
Coral:
Yeah. Of course. It's always an excuse if you commit an offense when you're angry. Stupid me.
Coral, when the fuck does anybody get out of line except when they're angry?
I'm angry quite a bit. I guess I can always interpose that defense if I begin revealing sensitive information on Moters. 251. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 3:01:22 AM
the fact that this "event" occurred during a fast and wide ranging debate on censorship/handles/post content is a huge mitigating factor.
Yeah. It was so "fast" that Seguine had to refer back to the offensive post several times, just in case people missed it the first time around. She then had to explain to everyone exactly how she had come up with Cal's name, naming the list upon which it appeared.
252. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 3:05:28 AM
RoE:
Don't reveal personal information/real names about another poster, unless you're very angry and it's a "fast-moving" debate, and unless you're a "valued contributor."
What self-serving bullshit.
Announce that policy to Newbies. Make it explicit. Let them decide if it's worth coming here or not.
|
