|
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. ;) 424. wabbit - 9/21/1999 11:07:53 PM Adam,
We spent a lot of time chasing Spiderman et. al. around last night deleting posts. The one in here was one I wasn't worried about. His various ID's have been banned, which is why the name doesn't show up on the registered participants list here anymore. 425. wabbit - 9/21/1999 11:10:29 PM I am against requiring people to have to use real names, however, requiring ISP based e-mail addresses will help us keep episodes like last night down to a dull roar. Nothing is 100%, but it will help. 426. AdamSelene - 9/21/1999 11:43:22 PM wabbit,
I didn't know about the spider infestation. If it's causing that much trouble, then by all means require ISPs. (Keep it as simple as possible, but no simpler.) 427. AdamSelene - 9/21/1999 11:48:29 PM wabbit,
Does this mean that no one can ever use the Spider-man name? I think it's rather cute. (It's properly spelled with a hyphen, btw. Check out any of his comic books - it was done to avoid any possible confusion with Superman.)
And while we're on the topic - at least, while I'm on it - is there any thought to allowing trademarked non-real names such as Spider-man? I just remembered that there are upwards of five lawsuits between Marvel Comics, Sony, and several others about the rights to the SM movie... They may be in a litigious mood these days. 428. wabbit - 9/21/1999 11:56:59 PM Funny you should mention that bit about using TM'd monikers, Adam, that crossed my mind last night. I don't think it should be a problem here, since we aren't using the name to sell or promote anything.
Right now, the "Spiderman" moniker is unavailable because it was banned. I wouldn't preclude the possibility that it might be made available in the future, but it won't be the near future. 429. CoralReef - 9/22/1999 1:45:52 AM Under what criterion were the Hitler/ Bloodnrapeboys/ Spiderman monikers banned? Was it known for sure that they were the preivously-banned God? If not, then I'm curious what the reasons were -- not that I'm against it, just would like to know. 430. CoralReef - 9/22/1999 2:00:16 AM Well the middle one is obvious since it relates to bloodnfire's name. 431. wabbit - 9/22/1999 2:04:55 AM RoE #3, as stated in the Suggestions thread. 432. CalGal - 9/22/1999 2:15:40 AM Coral,
I originally said that 50 posts were deleted, but I hadn't done the math. The creature went on a spamming spree in the Movies (70 posts), Spiritual Issues (40), and International thread (30). Other ugly comments and ids were strewn throughout the site. Saddam Hussein was another one he used. I saved a great deal of it before I deleted it.
It didn't matter who he was, quite frankly. Two things make me think it most likely that it was Cat/etc. 433. CalGal - 9/22/1999 2:16:28 AM And I left off the "rule #3" part, which wabbit just mentioned.
|
