|
309. alistairconnor - 9/20/1999 7:36:16 AM But seriously: Only the people on that list can read this thread. 310. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 8:08:14 AM The point is that you were dead wrong, and that you made
an arrogant, erroneous, and indefensible "judgement"
which hurt Cal. You haven't apologized to her for your
arrogance. You've admitted that, PERHAPS, you ought to
have deleted the "cipher" sooner. Where's the dissembly in this? Your attribution of my motives. I did apologize to CalGal. And I did in that apology say, not perhaps, that I should have moved sooner to delete the post. That's your whole post. If you had posted more I would have gone over my bag limit on dissemblies. This is what you do, Ace, when you don't have a real point -- you change things 'round until you do. And you repeat and repeat and repeat until someone rises to your bait. For chrissakes, the initial incident took I forget exactly how long but it was not long at all -- about time for thirty posts to elapse in a thread that racked up over a thousand in less than three days. You have gone on the record first saying that I didn't act to delete for nearly an hour, then over an hour, and now in TT I see you've said it took me an hour and a half. Come on. You've gone on record saying that the post hadn't been deleted. You've gone on record saying that Seguine received nothing at all, 'not even a slap on the wrist'. You've gone on the record saying that the cipher that was posted could be easily solved, when several different names will fit into it -- something that's so obvious that the Motier with possibly the MOST reason of us all to fear misuse of her personal ID even posted her RL name in that same cypher -- to demonstrate the silliness of your point. m. 311. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 8:08:44 AM So, please, let's not act coy about who's dissembling and who's saying things that's wrong. I'm sick of talking about it. You will no doubt seize upon this as some indication that I'm trying to hush up your brilliant Jim-Garrison-like campaign to ferret out the truth. If people buy that I'll probably be upset, but I've wasted enough time and energy down your sink and I think that if I'm going to devote those to the Mote I should at least find some positive impact I can make with the 312. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 8:09:17 AM poor edit. That last word should be 'them'. 313. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 8:21:01 AM Not only do I not recognize those two monikers, I think it
is safe to say that they didn't paralyze the fray like
Paradigm did. So banning worked in all those instances.
When they returned, they quit the offensive behavior.No, no, no. MCLA came back and did what he did more than once. So did BullE -- ask anyone that was about. Banning DIDN'T work in any way that deletion wouldn't have worked as well. Banning didn't even serve as a meaningful punishment -- which pretty much kills it as being a reason to ban as opposed to delete, at least in the minds of those poepl who have spoken up thus far in defense of banning. As I've said, having a new moniker was hardly a punishment to those two. I think they quit because they got tired of it all -- it had lost its savor -- and I hardly think they would have pressed the issue so long as they did if it weren't a challenge. Once again, the response seems to be 'But it's what we can do and it might have a deterrent effect. Why shouldn't we do it?' And the answer of course is that it isn't an effective deterrent -- look at the TT thread to have that made manifest, even if you don't accept the notion that BullE and MCLA and Hark quit out of boredom not out of punishment. If it were halfway effective to ban people I'd suggest we do it as a regular punishment for misdeeds-- but it doesn't seem that it's even a quarter effective. Plus, whenever we ban someone the place is in an uproar for days if not weeks. All this to me does NOT seem to be credible evidence in a case towards institutionalizing banning on a broader basis. And that's what some of you want to do. 314. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 8:23:19 AM A point of clarification -- BullE was banned before he ever came back as Paradigm. 315. joezan - 9/20/1999 8:37:02 AM
FWIW, and keeping in mind that Ace holds me on retainer for the CalGal account:
Seguine has been a valuable contributor to this forum, both here, and in its earlier incarnation. I've never had a problem with Seguine, and I happen to like her.
But I don't care who breaks a rule - it's got to be the same for everyone, or this place is no good. None of us would put up with that shit irl - why are there some arguing for exclusion here?
What's done is done. But now, make a rule, and enforce it regardless of who the offender is.
316. CalGal - 9/20/1999 8:40:26 AM Res,
You dismiss the importance of the privacy rule, you point out that most Mote members know my name, you say that the only real reason for anonymity is to provide a shield for inappropriate behavior. You haven't been in here fighting for a good privacy rule. You've been arguing for its elimination.
This effectively eradicates the limited value of your already non-committal apology and suggests a fairly dedicated effort to justify your actions. It also suggests that why it was that you were so slow to act in the first place.
I would say most people understand what happened. You ignored the violation (which you saw before anyone else) and refused original requests to delete because you dislike me a great deal. Seguine did what she did because she feels the same way. Make no mistake--I would not do the same to you or her. Not ever. There are very few people in this forum who would.
317. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 8:56:10 AM Whatever. I think I pointed out several positive instances of the use of anonymity in the post. I have been making a case for real names (not that THAT will ever fly) as a way out of this personal info tangle. You of course are free to say whatever you wish.
I'd just point this out to you. Go back and look at post 260.
I'd venture to say that most of you never saw it. It was by the poster using the cipher for a handle. This isn't my thread and it isn't my bailiwick and if I were to have this vendetta against you that would cause me to consciously bend the rules against you I would have let it stand where anyone could have seen it. I could have actesd as though I didn't see it or I could have (rightfully) said that it wasn't my place to delete. Hell, I didn't even think I could, as this is Wabbit's thread. I could have just emailed and let it all sit up there - and since no one has decoded your name from it in a manner which precludes guesswork (which WAS your yardstick about personal revelation) I'd have been absolutely blameless.
Instead, where I could have absolutely gotten away with letting someone flaunt your name and chuckled in mirth at my evil successes, I deleted the post. So think about that. 318. alistairconnor - 9/20/1999 8:58:26 AM That's why I never watch TV.
Too many re-runs. 319. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 9:03:01 AM I also feel compelled to point out that I originally argued for a STRONGER wording of RoE 1 WRT what was allowed to be revealed without someone's consent. You insisted that it wasn't necessary. And now you have the utter shamelessness to natter on about how I want to remove the privacy restrictions -- no mention, of course, of how I'd hope to do that or the reciprocity involved -- and take that to mean that my apology to you was therefore a fake. There is a difference between pointing out how hopelessly flawed a procedure is and saying that there should be no other form of procedure. And there is a difference between apologizing because I didn't do a job right and arguing that the job setting should be different. I'm sorry you don't grasp that, and angry that you'd try to twist it into something it doesn't mean. 320. CalGal - 9/20/1999 9:04:33 AM Res,
Get real. You're hardly going to err on the side of violation at this point.
Incidentally, you are wrong about the cipher.
321. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 9:09:26 AM Except absolutely no one would have known if I had, CalGal. This isn't my thread and to be honest I don't know why I was allowed to delete your post -- maybe Wabbit has left the switch open for all hosts to be able to delete in case of emergency. The point is that no one would have known, yet, strangely enough, I deleted it. In a situation where I not only would have received NO blame for not doing that, but no one would have even THOUGHT to blame me. Why don't you get a grip? 322. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 9:10:27 AM The cipher? I can fit several first names into it. I'm not wrong. 323. CalGal - 9/20/1999 9:10:44 AM Ace has brought up an issue that I think will work as a additional form of consequence--he suggests that Res shouldn't be allowed to host a thread without a babysitter. In Res' specific case, I agree.
But I think this can also work as a penalty for those who have been suspended, rather than banned, for releasing private information intentionally. I disagree with Ace that these people should be banned after one offense. My reason, alas, is practical. We have a small contingent of people here who can be extremely unpleasant and don't always follow the rules. But they are, in fact, different than the pestilent ones like CatintheHat, Paradigm, and others. In most cases, there will be a loud outcry against their banning by those who don't seem to be able to avoid making judgments based on their personal feelings for the offender.
I think we could implement a penalty that goes beyond the suspension--whatever length that might be. The two things that come to mind are thread hosting and participation in restricted discussions. The penalty doesn't have to be permanent, but it should be of a decent length of time--three months, maybe.
A few things have become clear to me in this ongoing debate. We have more than a few members whose judgment on these issues varies radically depending on their opinions of the offender and the victim. As a result, we are never going to get to the point of banning someone like Seguine, no matter how egregious the violation. That's just harsh reality. Someone could skirt the line with an offense again and again, and every time we'd have the usual suspects bleating about "valuable Mote member". This will put Wabbit and JJ in an impossible bind every time this occurs.
324. CalGal - 9/20/1999 9:12:51 AM Cont'd from prev post..
So we may as well make it official--there is one rule for pestilence, and one rule for the rest of us. Cat and Paradigm--pestilence. The minute we can find some excuse to dump them, they're gone. The rest of us--we don't get banned. Suspension is automatic, as is a privilege restriction of some sort. That should provide enough embarrassment for most people that one offense is all that happens. In the case where they keep on occurring, I'm willing to leave that up to Wabbit and JJ.
It will also avoid the indignity of some idiot who violated the RoE chiming in to judge some other idiot.
This is by way of a proposal.
Do I think we'll ever need this? Christ. I hope not. In fact, it never occurred to me that the rules I wrote up wouldn't be sufficient.
Also, I think Ace's interpretation of public vs. private definition is excellent--as well as the only obvious interpretation. But since some people seem to require that it be spelled out, I suggest that it be linked into the RoE as the working interpretation. 325. CalGal - 9/20/1999 9:15:46 AM Angel,
Yes, you are wrong. You just haven't figured it out yet.
And no, none of your actions since the other day are relevant to me in judging you for what you did at that moment. You're under scrutiny now, and on your best behavior. At the time, you thought it was all so clever of Seguine to do it.
I have not said your apology was a fake. I'm sure you meant it, as limp as it was. 326. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 9:24:12 AM
"Ciphers are fair game."
It is not dissembling to accuse you of bad motives when the most heavy-handed censor in Fray or Mote history suddenly decides NOT to censor a post which reveals a Moter's name, despited repeated, heated demands to do so. Despite being informed that it was a crackable cipher. Despite God and Kuligan both announcing that they would begin working on cracking it.
Despite that you your self noted it was a fair cipher when you said, "Ciphers are fair game." 327. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 9:34:04 AM
I think revelation of the big three in personal information-- name, address, phone number-- should be automatic bannable offenses, except in the rare case where there is legitimate confusion about whether or not the Moter has revealed that information. Spudboy, for example, now wants his anonymity back. That's fine, and I won't refer to his name. However, an infrequent poster who remembers him from his book hosting thread might think his name is public information and refer to it. That's a case of legitimate confusion, and perhaps he should be let off with a warning. Next offense, suspension or banning.
Seguine should be banned. That's the truth, and JJ, Wabbit, Alistair and the rest know it. They just don't want to do it, so we hear these bullshit excuses about "heated discussions" and "valued members."
If they want to declare Seguine above the law, that's fine-- for the past infraction. But never again should any Poster, no matter how "valued," no matter how connected to the Sun's Eye, no matter how chummy with the powers that be, be penalized anything short of an outright banning for this kind of offense.
328. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 10:17:44 AM
You have gone on the record first saying that I didn't act to delete for nearly an hour, then over an hour, and now in TT I see you've said it took me an hour and a half.
It took over an hour.
|
