|
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?
336. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 1:16:37 PM
And no one has satisfied my request: Please list the Moters who are "valued" enough to break the RoE with impunity so I can avoid getting in "heated exchanges" with this dangerous Untouchables.
And am I one of them? How much leeway do I get? Can I reveal some sensitive information? How about if I don't quite say it, but merely rhyme it? 337. CalGal - 9/20/1999 1:21:46 PM Incidentally, I earlier said that Spudboy was claiming that the damage was worse to him than me because he was a public figure. That wasn't what he was saying at all, and I apologize for the sarcasm--which was only directed at the silliness of such a claim. I'm relieved, quite frankly, to determine that I had misread. Spud, I'm sorry. 338. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 1:24:35 PM
Hold on-- is Angel deleting posts in this thread? Is he this thread's host?
Why the hell was he given another job of hosting a thread? 339. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 1:45:28 PM
Wabbit:
You haven't explained your reasoning on the Seguine situation yet. Originally, I assumed it was based on the "unbreakable cipher" defense, but we now know that isn't true. 340. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 3:31:53 PM Ace: (grin)
If you can't read on your own for the answer, I'll give you a stock one. (grinning wider) It's because they know me better than you do. Or maybe it's my good looks. I can never tell. Have a nice day, anyway! (waving at Ace) 342. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 4:14:36 PM How'd that happen ? Anyway, Ace, before you do one of your patented Jesus Lizard freakouts about what I said, just go back and actually read. 344. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 5:04:56 PM Something is screwy here. My posts are repeating.
(blissful grin) Oh,well, it must be the air in here. Most everything else repeats itself too. 345. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 5:06:56 PM Something is screwy here. My posts are repeating.
(blissful grin) Oh,well, it must be the air in here. Most everything else repeats itself too. 346. AdamSelene - 9/20/1999 11:05:46 PM God (no quotes,) are you guys still arguing over this stupid policy stuff? Come on - shit happens, life goes on. What hasn't been decided yet? All the possible future variations? Give it up - never happen. Which is why we have a human judge (or three.) And not everyone will like every outcome. But if some people wanna flame every decision until the cows come home, at least we have a semi-private place like this to do it. See, the Mote is working very well already! 347. wabbit - 9/20/1999 11:47:15 PM Cal,
Your #330 is correct about anticipating things. I don't think you ever thought about ciphers, and I know I didn't. Now we know and a few things need to be clarified.
First, I am not going to ban Seguine. I don't appreciate people pushing the envelope, the post was thoughtless and mean, but in the context of the original RoE she would not be banned for a first offense. She has suspended herself from posting, so for me to say I've suspended her would be inaccurate, though I most assuredly would have had she not beaten me to it. And Ace, if you think for one minute I won't ban Seguine for a second offense, you are gravely mistaken. I won't like it, any more than I would like banning you, but I won't bat an eye in doing it. Nor will I be bullied by people's opposing opinions.
Should A5 have deleted the cipher post immediately? Of course. Bad judgement, as he has admitted. In the future, thread hosts should delete any questionable posts. Better to err on the side of caution than not in situations like this.
Those of you who insist on attributing motive, knock it off. You don't like it when it's done to you.
We've been arguing this issue for over a week now, and it's time to settle the most important issues and move on. I would like to see this over within the next day or so. We obviously need to tighten up the RoE, so my next post presents a few revisions with some explanations.
348. wabbit - 9/20/1999 11:48:08 PM By participating in The Mote, you agree to abide by the Rules of Engagement, which are:
1. Do not reveal anyone else's personal information online.
Personal information includes name (full name or in part), residence, Phone number, family information, photos, in essence any tidbit that has not been made public by the person in question. Do not use codes, ciphers, foreign languages, ciphers in foreign languages, symbols, or any other method of disclosure. Do not post private information in another forum and make reference to it here. If you post private information in another forum and are found out, it will be considered the same as having posted the information in The Mote. Information posted by someone in another forum about themselves will not be considered public knowledge until that person posts it in The Mote.
This rule is inviolate. The post will be deleted and your ID will be banned.
2. Do not make threats.
The moderator will decide which threats are serious and will apply the same penalty as with rule #1.
3. Do not make posts that are needlessly abusive.
We understand that things get heated in the course of a discussion. Thread hosts will use their discretion about deleting posts and suspensions of the posting ID may result.
4. Do not use The Mote for advertising or soliciting. Posts will be deleted.
The Mote does not endorse or stand behind the truthfulness or reliability of any information posted by users and is not responsible in any manner for content, which remains the sole responsibility of the user.
The Mote reserves the right to delete a post that is perceived to violate any of its guidelines. The guidelines can be modified at any time.
349. wabbit - 9/20/1999 11:49:21 PM First rule: I agree with Ace on this one, let's take the judgement call aspect out of the equation. You violate this rule, your ID is banned. Not suspended, not warned, banned. If it was an honest mistake, what have you lost? Your ID. You will return with a new one, since we all know we can't prevent that, but you will not make the mistake again. If you are trying to cause trouble, we'll end up chasing you around deleting all your ID's because you will continue to cause trouble. It's a pain, but it can and will be done. I actually don't like the idea of suspending ID's much. It reeks of kindergarten time-outs to me and I'd really prefer to think of everyone here as an adult. I would prefer that someone be given a warning for a first offense and be banned for a second, but I think we need to eliminate the accusations of "insiders" vs. "ousiders" and removing warnings should do that.
I also think pleas of clemency should be discouraged if not outright ignored. Cal, you have been very gracious in this matter, but did you want to be or was your back against the wall? Not being in your head, I have no right to attribute motives to your actions. But I can see a situation where someone would feel pressured to be "nice" in order to reduce anticipated backlash against themselves, and that isn't a position anyone should be put in.
Second rule: This one is fairly straightforward, imo. Ace's threat to "burn the place down" was not a literal threat, imo. I wouldn't like to see anyone banned for threateneing someone with an atomic wedgie. This is going to be something of a judgement call. If anyone can find a way around that, let me know.
350. wabbit - 9/20/1999 11:50:02 PM Third rule: Again, pretty straightforward and a judgement call. Thread hosts set the tone for their threads and have to be allowed the latitude to enforce it.
Fourth rule: The promotion part has been removed. I think it should not be a problem for Blaise to announce in the Poetry thread that someone will be contributing something special to a poetry site. Marjoribanks may want to announce that some international figure is giving a speech somewhere. Several among us have created some very good websites and like to "promote" them here. If anyone has objections, please speak up.
|
