|
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. 329. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 11:07:14 AM Hell. This is pointless and I've said my piece. Those who are content to believe me will, those who are content to believe CalGal will. I've voiced my thoughts about the nature of the RoE and privacy and anonymity. Whatever we decide to implement in terms of rules changes will be fine with me, so long as the moderator agrees with them, as I trust Wabbit to have similar concerns to mine without all the hoopla surrounding my alleged ulterior motives to contend with. An if it harm none, she'll do as she wilt. 330. CalGal - 9/20/1999 12:27:30 PM Actually, I'm not sure that rules need to be changed. I still think the original definition works well--apparently, we just need to spell out the interpretation. And I say "apparently" because of the questions that arose. Questions that never arose when the same basic policy was used at the Fray. Not that I am bitter.
On the way home, I just thought of another possible distinction, god forbid.
If someone researched a Mote member to find the information--buzz! Gone. Thanks for playing. To me, that suggests a commitment to doing harm that goes well beyond the immediate impulse.
Suppose someone doesn't reveal their gender or their name. Another poster takes whatever information they do reveal and researches it and reveals info--whether it turns out to be accurate or not--then that's bannable. I can't imagine any other interpretation.
BTW, I'm not expecting all of this to be spelled out in the RoE. But again, given all the need to question, I think we should spell out the method by which it will be interpreted--with the option to change if some idiot decides to challenge it further.
And before someone tells me that there's no point in anticipating something that might never come up--that's what got us here, isn't it? Personally, I'd just as soon not have a policy debate everytime these come up. 331. CoralReef - 9/20/1999 12:47:55 PM • 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.
Idiotic. And infantile.
• If someone researched a Mote member to find the information--buzz! Gone. Thanks for playing. To me, that suggests a commitment to doing harm that goes well beyond the immediate impulse.
Really stupid. Breathtakingly stupid. I will never belong to any forum that claims to put restrictions my behavior outside of it.
• As a result, we are never going to get to the point of banning someone like Seguine, no matter how egregious the violation.
Complete and utter bullshit, and you know it.
CalGal, I'm going to put this in the language you understand: you are prosecuting this to the extent you are to be a manipulating mean fuck. Knock it off. 332. CalGal - 9/20/1999 1:08:18 PM Coral,
I'm not prosecuting this at all. I've already said I don't think Seguine should be banned.
I do very much object to the excuses that have been provided for her, and I'm pointing them out to illustrate what I think we need to avoid--namely, this bullshit of the "valuable Mote Member" getting special treatment. In fact, I think it is so inevitable that I'm suggesting we incorporate attitudes such as yours, rather than fight it.
As for Res--shrug. I agree with Ace. I think his behavior was way out of line. If a thread host can't be trusted to uphold the RoE, then I really don't want him hosting.
He saw the violation, he thought it was clever, he POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS A CIPHER (which, incidentally, I didn't see), he then refused judiciously when Ace demanded it be deleted--and only when I demanded it did he delete it, with a sigh that I was probably overreacting.
He let his personal opinions of the people in question determine his actions.
Do I think it's likely that this restriction will take effect? Unlikely. Shrug again. That's life. We're very worried here, apparently, about causing Seg and Res any embarrassment for their behavior. Surely they've suffered enough.
However, I think the restriction on someone who has been banned in the future makes sense.
I will never belong to any forum that claims to put restrictions my behavior outside of it.
If you're out there researching information on other Mote members, I really don't give a damn if you choose not to belong. Since it's unlikely you are, I doubt it will be an issue.
Besides, we've already established several possibilities for banning people from this forum because of behavior outside it--namely, if they publish personal information in another forum. I don't remember you objecting then.
333. CalGal - 9/20/1999 1:08:36 PM And the day that you announce that Seguine is a mean manipulating fuck for deliberately posting my name in a code that has but one translation and then calling attention to it on the offchance that people missed it (to say nothing of the misspelling and the mention of where she found it)--well, that will be the day that you'll start being someone whose opinion in these matters isn't based on whether or not you like the person involved. Which is the day that your opinion on these issues will start to matter. 334. CalGal - 9/20/1999 1:11:12 PM ....matter to me, that is. 335. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 1:12:53 PM
"you are prosecuting this to the extent you are to be a manipulating mean fuck."
Blame the victim. What right does she have to be upset about Seguine? Why can't she take Coral's blase attitude? Doesn't Cal realize that Seguine is "valued" by CoralReef? Doesn't she realize that Seguine only did what she did because she was in a "heated" argument?
Why on earth should she suggest tough rules to prevent this from happening again? What right does she have?
|
