|
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. 253. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 3:06:22 AM
Cal:
You can change the RoE, can't you? Why don't you change the RoE right now to reflect Coral's and Angel's and Spud's and the Management's actual interpretation of the rules? 254. KuligintheHooligan - 9/20/1999 3:08:27 AM Ace, that's what I don't get. Seguine got Cal's name from SOMEBODY, right? And I assume it is from somebody that Cal trusted, or that person told somebody else who told somebody else, and so on....? 255. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 3:10:55 AM
Kuligin:
It came, as I understand it, from an inadvertant hint from Irv.
Doesn't matter anyway, really. If I trust Niner with my real name PRIVATELY, I am not giving him or anybody else license to publish it publicly.
Please-- I pray-- let's vote on precisely who is allowed to reveal personal information and who isn't. I want to know if 1) I am "valued" enough to out a few people, and 2) I want to know who I should stay clear of in debates. 256. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 3:13:13 AM RoE:
Don't be needlessly abusive 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.
You see, it all depends upon what you consider important and a lot ofewbies, if reading serves me, have come in and complained about incivility. I have yet to see one come in and complain about violations of RoE 1, even though you have plastered the debate all over the place and even in TT. That, once again, doesn't mean that RoE 1 is meaningless. But before we go off about how we're bending the rules for Seguine, let's read them straight from the horse's mouth: The first two laws are absolute. Inadvertent slips are deleted. Continual
violations are grounds for banning.
I may be missing something but there's nothing in there about banning on the first offense.
257. KuligintheHooligan - 9/20/1999 3:22:08 AM OK, so much for seguine's action not being premeditated or "several." Has anybody seen the list of eMoters in this room? 258. JudithAtHome - 9/20/1999 3:28:50 AM Kuligan:
Are we supposed to adopt the Fox Mulder school of thought: trust no one? I think if someone is posting under a ficticious name, they more than likely don't wish to use their real name, for whatever reason. If that someone is known to me by their real name, I think common sense would tell me they wish to keep that name private or they would be posting under it themselves.
Courtesy is rather a nice habit to cultivate. I don't see how treating one another with common courtesy will cause this place to devolve into a tearoom. 259. KuligintheHooligan - 9/20/1999 3:38:31 AM I don't disagree Judith, but that wasn't my point. So someone posts under a ficticious name but tells a few friends in the Mote what his/her real name is.
And then one of those people goes and blabs it.
We can whine all we want to about it, but that's just too bad as far as I am concerned. The problem is, of course, that not all people believe in the "common courtesy" you talk about.
You pick your friends, and then you live with the consequences. That's life. 261. JudithAtHome - 9/20/1999 3:58:39 AM Kuligan:
Yes, I know how it is to pick friends unwisely.
Speaking of which, one of yours is now in TT threatening to post here under others names...have you any influence over him? 262. CoralReef - 9/20/1999 4:15:14 AM Kuligin, 257
Please don't jump to conclusions. 263. JudithAtHome - 9/20/1999 4:20:14 AM Kuligan:
Please read my last post..... 264. CalGal - 9/20/1999 4:24:25 AM Whoever created that id should be banned. And I'm getting a bit fed up with this bullshit. 265. JudithAtHome - 9/20/1999 4:34:56 AM CalGal:
Have you read Fraygs. Corner in TT lately?
|
