|
356. JudithAtHome - 9/21/1999 2:19:43 AM wabbit:
Well done. 357. CalGal - 9/21/1999 2:25:11 AM First draft:
Rules of Engagement
They are fairly simple:
- Don't reveal someone else's personal information online.
- Don't make threats.
- Don't make posts that are needlessly abusive.
- Do not use The Mote for advertising or solicitations of any sort.
What happens if you break the rules?
1. Personal information
Release private information online, we ban your id. This is absolute. Click here for a definition of public vs. private information.(I suggest some version of Ace's interpretation be at the other end of a link.) Do not mess around with this rule. Don't try to push the envelope. Don't say, "What if...." Don't try to be cute. Just don't go near the line.
2. Threats
If it is a serious threat, you will be banned. Definition of "serious" is left up to the Mote administrators. (I need more work here, am open to suggestions.)
3. Needless abuse
The definition of "needless" and "abusive" are left to the thread host, whose word is final. Any posts that are deemed abusive will be deleted. Understand that standards are set by the host. Continually abusive behavior may be grounds for banning.
It goes without saying that this has holes you can drive trucks through. This is intentional. The inventiveness of a small minority forces us to be vague.
4. Solicitations and advertising
You'll be warned. Don't be a pest, please.
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.
By participating in The Mote, you agree to abide by the Rules of Engagement. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved.358. wabbit - 9/21/1999 2:36:27 AM Cal,
I wasn't going for layout, and I much prefer yours. I also like your wording of #2-4. I think I'd rather have the specifics spelled out right there for #1, rather than rely on people to click through to another page. 359. JayAckroyd - 9/21/1999 3:41:00 AM These look good to me.
I agree with wabbit that we have to eliminate even a hint of favoritism. 360. ChristinO - 9/21/1999 4:11:40 AM Wabbit, Cal,
Looks good. I agree that linking to a separate page is probably not the best thing. It looks good and it streamlines, but at this point I think it's more important to be explicit in light of current events.
Riv,
I understood it to be that you would receive a warning for first offense and then be banned if you continued. I don't think we're really in danger of mass bannings for harmless oversights. It doesn't happen all that often.
Re: Suspensions
I like the idea of suspensions because sometimes people just lose it for a day or two. They may not be revealing personal information but they might be just flaming on and on and on about something in an inappropriate way and need to cool down. A multitude of posters who are for the most part (99.9%) okay do have that occasional hysterical lapse.
I'd prefer that banning be "for reals" with suspension as a tool to tell people to "chill out". 361. Rivendell - 9/21/1999 4:40:43 AM Christin,
That is not correct, according to the interpretation posted in wabbit's #349. And I agree with you, mass bannings are hardly likely.
That does not change my reservations about the no warning bans, nor does it change my willingness to support it provided no one else comes up with another way to remove subjectivity from the decision. 362. Ace of Spades - 9/21/1999 4:50:29 AM
As I understand it, inadvertant/clueless revelations will receive warnings, but will be banned if the the revelations continue.
Intentional revelation of the most important personal information will get you a ban without a warning. And why shouldn't you? Why do you need a warning? Is anyone incapable of of understanding that you can't reveal names and addresses? Everyone has their warning already; there it is.
I don't expect that anyone will get banned for lesser revelations. For example, I don't know if "God" would be banned immediately under the new rules for saying what he did about Jen. But I could be wrong.
I'd expect he'd maybe get a suspension. 363. Ace of Spades - 9/21/1999 4:56:21 AM
Angel:
(yawning) You didn't delete that post out of bad motives.
(checking nails) Furthermore, you're a bit of an imbecile.
(itching behind right knee) And you've demonstrated either colossal misfeasance or malfeasance in hosting a thread. Take your pick.
(grinning wider) Go away.
364. ChristinO - 9/21/1999 5:07:01 AM Riv,
I just re-read and you are correct. I agree with you. I'd prefer a warning for unintentional blunders, but as Ace points out the fact that the rule exist should serve as sufficient warning that it should almost never happen.
Either way it goes is really fine with me. I have to say that as a host I would feel uncomfortable banning someone who obviously made a mistake but I would still enforce the agreed upon rules. 365. wabbit - 9/21/1999 5:21:17 AM ChristinO and Ace,
Nope. Under my proposed rule #1, if personal information is revealed in any way, your ID gets banned.
What seems important to me after these recent episodes is that consideration of the issue of intent has to be removed. While it would be nice to be able to make the distinction between something that was meant to cause real harm to someone else and an inadvertant, or just plain dumb, revelation, if we don't remove the aspect of judgement, then someone is always going to have to make the call, and someone is always going to be unsatisfied with that call.
Let's suppose one of the couple dozen people here who know my real name use it in a post to me. I'd prefer that the post be deleted and the person just not do it again. Suppose it happened in the middle of an argument, someone got really pissed at me and used my real name instead of my handle. Well, to me, this site is still so small that I can't really say I'd feel any differently. But not everyone is going to react that way. Fair enough. Who makes the call about whether the po'd person meant to be malicious? Here's the issue of who is whose buddy rearing it's ugly head. We are dealing with the potential for a lot of human error here, shit is going to happen. The shock of losing your handle for posting without taking a deep breath and thinking first is, to me, not an unfair price.
I'm applying this to rule #1 only. I expect it to be used rarely. And to ban someone for #2 should be even more rare. I think many more posts will fall into the jurisdiction of rule #3, where posts will be deleted and people will be told to knock it off or will get suspended for a day or two.
At least, that is my hope. 366. wabbit - 9/21/1999 5:41:29 AM A couple examples: there is a dialog today in the Mote Cafe thread between ChristinO and Angel-Five. Lots of teasing type "personal" information was flying. Obviously not a problem, rule #1 does not apply. God's post was not in the same ballpark. He would have been banned under my proposed rule #1. It was personal information about someone else. End of story. Seguine's post would have been treated the same as god's. Banned ID. No questions asked, no warning. 367. Ace of Spades - 9/21/1999 6:01:04 AM
Wabbit:
I actually prefer your solution, since it takes any subjectivity out of the decision.
But I'm not sure it's entirely workable. What if I accidentally write CalGal's first name? I have almost done so seven or eight times during this episode. 368. Rivendell - 9/21/1999 6:07:38 AM wabbit,
True tale of something that happened to me once in the Fraygrant's Corner. I was teasing someone (not Diva, this particular time) and I cut a bit too close to the bone causing this person to inadvertently address me by my real first name. This person immediately came up with some "diverting attention" post in an attempt to cover it up. It did not bother me because I knew right away it was a slip.
I would feel terrible in a similar circumstance if a friend lost their ID (particularly if it was a well established one) over such an easy mistake to make.
I'm sure similar things have happened to many other Motiers in the last three years. It is something I know I will have to be very careful about.
But I agree with the assertion that your interpretation of Rule #1 should be sufficiently severe to make people think before they post and that might not be a bad thing. 369. wabbit - 9/21/1999 6:13:34 AM Well, Ace, that was what I meant in my example. For myself, I wouldn't much care, but someone else might be very upset. Sorry Ace, you would need to find a new handle.
Now, suppose we can somehow incorporate a feature which allows us to delete our own posts within a given period of time (a short period of time, maybe 15 minutes). The poster could self-delete and we could consider that a boo-boo not requiring banning. Unfortunately, that also opens the door for someone to be nasty, self-delete, and, well, you can see where this will go.
So, I'm afraid the potential over-reaction of my suggested rule #1 is all I could come up with that eliminates as much of the subjectivity issue as possible. 370. wabbit - 9/21/1999 6:18:53 AM Riv, I'm sure sooner or later it will happen. If it is truly a goof, and the offended party e-mailed me about it and assured me it wasn't a big deal and just asked that the post be deleted, I'd be fine with that. But here we go again with the question of trusting someone's discretion. At this point, I think it's best not to go there. 371. Rivendell - 9/21/1999 6:22:39 AM wabbit,
As things stand I agree. If you do that then it opens the door to subjectivity and then where's the line. 372. Ace of Spades - 9/21/1999 6:43:15 AM
Wabbit:
But your new solution doesn't take into account the quality of the information revealed. I agree-- full name, automatic ban, or even just the last name.
But first names aren't quite as serious. Nor is it quite as serious for God, as he did the other day, to reveal that someone might work at/attend a large university. That's "personal information," but it does not reveal who someone is.
For lesser revelations like this, I wouldn't mind a discretionary system. Short suspensions, long suspensions, banning, depending on the quality of information divulged.
Full name/last name and address and phone number should always be bannable. I wouldn't consider any of God's revelations bannable myself (though I won't protest his banning).
Another example: JadeGold. Let's say she starts posting here. She has told everybody (a BAZILLION times) that she attended a military academy. Which one? Who knows. But if I make fun of her and say "Oh, Jade, why don't you go back to the Air Force Academy to learn more about aircraft maintanence," that's not a revelation, that's a guess between the three possibilities (West Point, Annapolis, AFA; assuming that she isn't talking about some lesser Academy like The Citadel or whatnot).
And now what if she cries, "That IS where I went to school; that's a revelation!" Well, how the hell was I supposed to know that?
When I talk to people, sometimes I'll call them "Jack." As in, "Look here, Jack, you're a dummy." What if the person I call "Jack" is really named "Jack"?
373. arkymalarky - 9/21/1999 6:46:40 AM Ace, you think too much. 374. CalGal - 9/21/1999 6:52:45 AM Yes, he is a problem thinker. I speak as a fellow sufferer.
I really think that the definition of public vs. private will cover that, Ace. 375. Ace of Spades - 9/21/1999 6:54:03 AM
Arky:
It's a real possibility. If the standard is "automatic banning for ANY information revealed," there can be just that kind of silliness.
If we have to choose between such draconianism and the "system" we've had in place until now, I'd favor the draconian solution. I guess I'll just have to avoid calling anyone "Jack" from now on.
But there will be occasions when what is public and what is not public is in dispute, and there's no way to verify. What then? I've stated that I work for an insurance company; if someone says I work at Zurich, and they're right (or even more insidious: If I CLAIM that they're right, even though they're not, just to get them banned), what then?
Automatic banning? Suspension? Warning?
I don't think the banning would be "automatic" in such a situation. We can write the rules any way we want, but I see no point in claiming that the bans will be automatic if, in fact, they won't be. That'll just lead to further disputes.
|
