|
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? 266. CalGal - 9/20/1999 4:38:35 AM No. Sigh. 267. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 4:38:38 AM Yup. Banning sure works. 268. CalGal - 9/20/1999 4:44:46 AM Yes, it does work. What makes you think otherwise?
He has a forum. Frankly, if we all desubscribed to that thread--or requested it be deleted--we'd remove his incentive to vomit out information. He hasn't posted anything about me, but what he's saying about the other person is indicative of a very ugly personality. I hope he is banned from here permanently. 269. CoralReef - 9/20/1999 4:47:20 AM It's probably impossible to effectively ban people. Even if their IP address was targeted they can just get a new one. Yes, if they resurface obviously as the same person they can just be rebanned, but that's relying on luck. 270. CoralReef - 9/20/1999 4:48:24 AM I have no idea why all the white space after that post. 271. CoralReef - 9/20/1999 4:49:28 AM Oh I see, all that whitespace was not part of the post, it just seemed like it was. Sorry for this tech issues digression. 272. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 4:51:56 AM I don't want to sound flip about this, really, and would take that last comment back. At least the tone. But this, to me, is just crystalline proof that banning doesn't work. It just incites people to greater efforts. In a discussion a few days ago with a very interesting friend, the subject of arguing with dishonest and unscrupulous people came up. It's a bitch to sit and endure what they have to say, especially when they've decided that they're gonna distort whatever you say to their own ends. But it is no more sensible than trying to prove them wrong, outwit them, or sway public opinion to your side. This is because, to use her phrasing if not exactly, these people's metabolisms are so much more devoted to their endeavor than yours can afford to be. They're willing to spend more energy finding a way to do what you don't want them to -- whether or not it's post 'personal' information, lie about what you're saying and doing, or just doing damage to the forum -- than you can be expected to spend on stopping them. This is the law of the Internet -- rules aren't going to save a self-destructive forum from itself.
|
