|
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. 401. Ace of Spades - 9/21/1999 9:04:34 AM
"and not a terribly onerous rule with which to comport oneself." 402. wabbit - 9/21/1999 9:26:53 AM Ace, I agree. 403. Greystoke - 9/21/1999 9:44:44 AM wabbit
I am impressed at how you performed VI jujitsu on the argument that it is senseless to ban anyone: they can simply come back with a new ID.
Now the argument is that banning is an appropriate punishment because the person can come back with a new ID.
Its not that I am a big proponent of banning. I just like your reasoning.
404. Greystoke - 9/21/1999 10:03:25 AM wabbit
One point I am a little unclear on, though. Under what circumstances do we let the person come back with a new ID (i.e. he has a new ID, assumes his old persona, and we all know who he was) and what circumstances do we hunt him down to delete all his new posts and ban his new ID, too.
Is the latter situation only for repeat offenses, or also for particularly egregious first offenses, too? In other words, can someone be banned for life no matter what his ID is? 405. wabbit - 9/21/1999 10:22:42 AM Greystoke,
I know it sounds ridiculous, but realistically, unless we start requiring people to register with real names and permanent e-mail addresses, it is virtually impossible to prevent someone from coming back. The upside is that people who are banned for what was really an oversight, although a violation of the RoE, can come back and will not be a problem. Occasionally someone who has created a problem and has been banned may realize that there is some good conversation to be had here, and will not repeat the behavior in order to stay. The downside is that people who want to be a problem will continue to be one, and we are stuck with having to watch out for them, delete posts, issue warnings and ban them.
If someone has a way around this, please tell us.
|
