|
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. 376. wabbit - 9/21/1999 6:55:01 AM Ace,
I agree, but again, it becomes a matter of discretion. Rule #1 can be modified to read full name or including last name. I prefer that, because it would allow for Riv's example of an honest mistake. The post would be deleted and the poster would be reminded to indulge in a bit more caffeine and pay closer attention.
I think the same would apply to your Jack example. People named Jack, or John Doe, must recognize the universality of their name, and in that case would be better off not pointing out that it actually was their name.
In the case of god, I was thinking about the first post I deleted, not the second.
I also suspect that we are going to have to get over some of our history now. I hope that Jade would know that you were guessing and not verify the information. Or maybe the onus should be left on you. You could say "Oh, Jade, why don't you go back to the Air Force Academy to learn more about aircraft maintanence, or the Naval Academy and swab some decks, or Westpoint where you can run amok torturing plebes" and cover your butt beforehand, n'est pas? 377. wabbit - 9/21/1999 6:57:55 AM I'm off to dinner with the nieces. Cal or Ace, could you please repost the public/private definition? Thanks. I shall return. 378. Ace of Spades - 9/21/1999 6:58:47 AM
Although I do support automatic bans for the big revelations.
Hmmmmm... If someone did reveal I worked at Zurich, how would I know to believe them if they claimed they were "just guessing among several insurance companies," rather than revealing that as a fact which they were certain of?
That's a problematic case, I guess. If Wabbit wants to automatically ban for that stuff, fine, but I'm not sure it's really workable. If I know the rules, I can modify what I say, and will just say that Jade went to "Joe Blow Military Academy." Easy enough. But what about newbies that don't realize how draconian the rules are? 379. wabbit - 9/21/1999 7:01:03 AM Maybe we can link the registration page to the RoE? Ask them to be sure to read the RoE carefully, because we mean it? 380. Ace of Spades - 9/21/1999 7:01:46 AM
What if someone really IS named Nitwit or Moron or Jagoff?
You can see the bind I'm in.
|
