|
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.
351. wabbit - 9/20/1999 11:50:46 PM I am against requiring people to have to use their real names. Aside from the potential privacy issues, how would we really know whether or not Joe Blow was my real name, if that was what I registered with? It works for The Well because they have a high enough registration fee that most registrants pay with a credit card, and that allows a degree of verification. The same does not apply here.
Those are my suggestions. Have at them. Let's try to get a new RoE page hammered out and posted today. 352. AdamSelene - 9/21/1999 12:40:20 AM wabbit.
Your rules seem fine with me, except that I don't agree that short suspensions have their place. A one day (or less) suspension is likely to result in the suspendee taking a little time to seriously think about it. A longer supension would more than likely result in the suspendee just creating another handle and coming back in to bitch about it.
So - I support the rules, but I would still use short suspensions for serious first-time warnings.
(And my disagreement with any part is simply for the record, I will not repeat ad nauseum or throw temper tantrums if I don't get my way! I'm very happy with the Mote as is.) 353. wabbit - 9/21/1999 12:58:00 AM Adam,
I think short suspensions may work within the individual threads when a poster is violating whatever terms the thread host has established. Violations of Rule 1 require something more, imo, and I really would like to see the "friendship" issue eliminated as much as possible. But these are only suggestions and I await opinions. 354. vonKreedon - 9/21/1999 2:01:28 AM Wabbit - Nice set of clarifying posts. I'm with Selene on liking suspensions, but like the clarity of your posts.
I also liked Spades idea of a list of un-bannables because, of course, I would be on such a list and Spade has said that he would make nice to anyone on the list. 355. Rivendell - 9/21/1999 2:06:31 AM Well I had a longer post, but the time it took to compose it between phone calls caused the Reregister fairy to kick in and now it is gone.
So here is the short version. Good job wabbit. Don't personally like the immediate bans in cases where a person honestly inadvertantly reveals another's personal information. But also have no other suggestions for removing subjectivity.
And now here's hoping the forum can move on.
|
