|
381. arkymalarky - 9/21/1999 7:03:20 AM I really like what I read of the rules. It seems very workable to me, but I agree about the first name adjustment. I try to be extremely careful, because it's a fear of mine that I'll accidently divulge a first name when I'm not supposed to. Kuligan has told people already they're welcome to use his first name, but I thought about the discussion in here and called him KtheH instead. 382. arkymalarky - 9/21/1999 7:05:11 AM "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?"
I guess the moral to that would be don't guess. What business do they have guessing? 383. Ace of Spades - 9/21/1999 7:05:31 AM
I think revealing a first name CAN be a bannable offense, if it's done maliciously. But not if it's clearly accidental.
I'd support a suspension, even in accidental cases. 384. Ace of Spades - 9/21/1999 7:08:38 AM
Arky:
Yes, I suppose. You really can't differentiate between "revelations" and "guesses" without being too discretionary.
It just seems a little crazy, though. If I'm talking to you, and I say "Teaching in Little Rock is a lot different than teaching in New York City," and let's say you do live in Little Rock (I have no idea; I swear; it's the only town I know in Arkansas other than Hope), is that grounds for banning? 385. arkymalarky - 9/21/1999 7:17:04 AM Well, Ace, if you were asking me that with the obvious implication being that you knew where I taught, then you would be crossing the line, imo. Just making a general statement about teaching in AR or LR has nothing to do with me. If it is an effort to pin down a town, and you said teaching in Podunk is different from NYC, then it would be a line crosser, too. 386. Ace of Spades - 9/21/1999 7:18:23 AM
In addition, my above post isn't even clearly a guess. I could just be telling you, a teacher in Arkansas, that teaching in Little Rock is different from teaching in New York. I'm just using Little Rock as an example that I'd imagine would have some evocative power to you.
Who's to say that I'm "guessing" you teach in LR? I'm not making any kind of statements about you; but you could conceivably claim I'm trying to out you.
387. Ace of Spades - 9/21/1999 7:21:08 AM
Arky:
But what you're doing is introducing discretion into a decision which we're claiming is no longer discretionary.
You can't say the ban will be automatic if I say "Podunk" (and "guess" right) but won't be automatic if I say "Little Rock" (and "guess" right).
That's not really "automatic" then. Then you're bringing in some kind of judgement.
You're sort of saying it's automatic, except when it isn't automatic.
Which is not automatic. 388. Ace of Spades - 9/21/1999 7:25:52 AM
Why not just say: "Revealing any personal information is PRESUMTIVELY grounds for immediate, automatic banning. The only situations in which this will not result in immediate, automatic banning are in cases of clearly inadvertant revelations of fairly trivial personal information."
389. arkymalarky - 9/21/1999 7:26:45 AM No, I'm saying if you "guess" or dance around revealing info in that way you should be out for at least a suspension, but that should be at the discretion of the moderator and thread host with the views of the targeted party as expressed privately by email taken into consideration.
And cut this out! I feel like I've been sucked into a vortex. No law is perfect and judgment has got to enter in at some point. You want that point to arrive before everyone knows the birthday and eye color of your first born. 390. arkymalarky - 9/21/1999 7:27:19 AM Add the requisite "g" to that, lest you think I'm serious. 391. arkymalarky - 9/21/1999 7:29:04 AM OK. 388 is fine. Walk away slowly from that post without looking at it any more and go directly to the Politics thread. You won't believe what the liberals are saying in there. 392. Ace of Spades - 9/21/1999 7:33:17 AM
Huh? They're saying nothing particularly interesting. 393. CalGal - 9/21/1999 7:33:51 AM Ace,
I like that too, if it's okay with Wabbit. ANd I agree with Arky--go kick a liberal around for a while and let's see how this shakes out. 394. Ace of Spades - 9/21/1999 7:38:07 AM
Seriously, though. If someone's real name is Jagoff Moron Dipshit, Esq., how long could I possibly survive under this regime? 395. arkymalarky - 9/21/1999 7:40:51 AM Forget you, how could HE survive? 396. Spiderman - 9/21/1999 8:43:32 AM Hard to breathe in here, too much smoke from all those crack pipes, somebody open a window. 397. IrvingSnodgrass - 9/21/1999 8:49:54 AM Oops, Arky, I think you just publicly revealed that your real name is Jagoff Moron Dipshit, Esq. It's fair game, now, Jag.
398. IrvingSnodgrass - 9/21/1999 8:53:08 AM I mean Ace accidentally outed himself. I gotta read more carefully. 399. wabbit - 9/21/1999 8:55:57 AM #388 looks good to me.
Cal, can you toss off a quick reworking of rule #1 to include that? I think your wording of the balance of the RoE should be fine.
What about the self-delete feature, folks? Can we live with not banning people who are willing to delete their own post within a short period of time, like 15 minutes? Will a warning do in that case? 400. Ace of Spades - 9/21/1999 9:00:46 AM
Can we live with not banning people who are willing to delete their own post within a short period of time, like 15 minutes?
I can't. The information is still outed publicly.
Can people reveal personal information for just ten minutes, letting who knows how many people peruse it, then delete it and escape without banning? Why? They shouldn't have done it in the first place. It's a simple rule and not terrible onerous with which to comport oneself.
|
