|
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. 406. bloodnfire - 9/21/1999 10:34:53 AM Wabbit. Your #405. You post..."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".
So, let's do it !! Why would anyone (other than people like 'Cat in the Hat) have any objection to using real I.D. and permanent e-mail to register ? Sounds good to me. It's interesting that, regardless of the change of name, the individual coming back to attempt the same destructive mischief still smells the same. 407. wabbit - 9/21/1999 10:42:11 AM bloodnfire,
It is another thing to consider. How does everyone feel about this?
410. SnowOwl - 9/21/1999 11:08:34 AM wabbit,
It sounds okay in principle, but I'm not sure it would be very effective in practise. For example, I've got access to 5 different email addresses (non Web-based ones). They don't all belong to me but they are all accessible by me and there would be nothing to stop me registering under 5 different names with a different email address for each one. I think Table Talk requires a "real" email address for registration, but that doesn't seem to have cut down on the number of multiples over there, if what I've read is correct.
If someone really wants to get in here there seems very little you can do to actually keep them out permanently. 412. Greystoke - 9/21/1999 11:45:52 AM wabbit
"I know it sounds ridiculous ..."
No. I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. I really do see the logic in banning a particular ID, but allowing the person to come back under another ID (since we can't stop it anyway). That would indeed be an appropriate punishment for a run of the mill case of disclosing private information.
My question in #404 is for more serious violations where the person comes back with a new ID and admits who he is (or was).
BTW I object to using my real name and would not stay here if that was a requirement. 413. Ace of Spades - 9/21/1999 12:19:34 PM
Why don't you require real e-mail addresses for registration? Most people will have access to two but no more. 414. Greystoke - 9/21/1999 12:21:48 PM Ace
"Why don't you require real e-mail addresses for registration? Most people will have access to two but no more."
It is required, isn't it? How else would new enlistees get their password?
415. wabbit - 9/21/1999 1:27:56 PM Greystoke,
I was unclear, sorry, it isn't that hotmail et al aren't real, what I meant was an ISP based e-mail address. It isn't foolproof, as SnowOwl pointed out, but it's a damn sight better than having another episode like tonight's. We're working out the details and will keep everyone informed. 416. wabbit - 9/21/1999 1:29:11 PM btw, I don't think we'll ever require you to use your real name for posting. Many people object to that, me among them. 417. CalGal - 9/21/1999 4:49:40 PM Resonance, in Suggestions:
No one's been told that they can't host again. I've received nothing but support from Mote staff over my hosting job.
Well, no. You've received whatever you have from Mote forum managers. "Mote staff" includes me. Thus turning your confident assertion into a gross misrepresentation in the blink of an eye.
That being said, I have no issue with Wabbit's decision.
However, I think a Host Handbook is in order. If not now, then I just request that it be filed away as a backburner item; people can take note of any constant questions or policy issues that arise.
418. CalGal - 9/21/1999 5:44:49 PM Second 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
Revealing private information, we ban your id. Or assume we will--while we allow an out for clearly inadvertent revelations of non-critical information, it's best not to count on the mercy of the judge.
Despite this harsh wording, people always have to ask--what is public information?
"Public" information:
- Has been revealed with the individual's permission and explicit consent
- Has been explicitly linked to the individual's online identity
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. This is the most damaging RoE violation, and the one we take the most seriously.
2. Threats
If it is a serious threat, you will be banned. Definition of "serious" is left up to the Mote administrators.
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.
419. CalGal - 9/21/1999 5:45:36 PM
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. 420. CalGal - 9/21/1999 5:47:07 PM Arggh
1. Has been revealed with the individual's permission and explicit consent
individual's knowledge, I think. Not permission, which is covered in consent. Sorry.
421. pellenilsson - 9/21/1999 5:52:17 PM It was my impression that 'God' had no objection to using his real name and real ID. Am I wrong? 422. AdamSelene - 9/21/1999 10:02:48 PM Are we re-opening the idea of having everyone use their real names, or of just having a positive ID known only to the Mote? I don't really like either one, but the latter is infinitely preferable to the former. But really - you guys are dragging this on to ridiculus extremes. A few bad apples will occasionally show up, but we can kick them out of the barrel soon enough. A couple of swift kicks and they'll quit wasting their time.
Expecting to stop every bad occurance ahead of time is just like the anti-gun crowd wanting to pass a new law every time someone's shot - regardless of the fact that every shooting (even the highly-publicised school shootings,) already breaks dozens of existing laws that are rarely being prosecuted. Not to start a new debate, you understand, but just do demonstrate that at some point we have to agree to disagree and get on with our lives. 423. AdamSelene - 9/21/1999 10:05:11 PM Hey, how did Spiderman post here without also showing up in the registrants list? Is this a bug? (No, it's just an arachnid. ;)
|
