|
435. CalGal - 9/22/1999 7:25:11 AM I dunno about simple, but he sure was optimistic. 436. RosettaSTONE - 9/22/1999 7:47:21 AM That quote is from theoretical physicist Albert Einstein, Nostradamus. 437. bloodnfire - 9/22/1999 9:09:06 AM Bloodnrapeboys!!?? Mmmmm. And donkeys!!?? (at one stage of the evening). And my Uncle !!! Listen, if anyone had ever seen my uncle (I mean absolutely no disrespect) I'd have been better off with a donkey.
The fact is that when people are joined together in doing something really worthwhile and for the 'public good', then maliciousness will most often 'raise its ugly head'. For the non-believers in our midst this may be a psychological reaction. For the believers, it is a sign that the 'enemy' is livid. Please be encouraged. We have a wonderful Forum shaping up here, and last night was a 'seal of approval' on it as far as I can see. But then, I'm a dumb 'Thumper'
:-)
438. AdamSelene - 9/22/1999 9:46:48 AM "Pretty simple?" I'm sure Albert would have been amused! (He was optimistic, though.)
Thanks Rosetta, it's nice to know someone's paying attention. (By the way, what's it like to star with Fred and Wilma?) 439. wabbit - 9/22/1999 11:17:07 PM I'm pretty happy with the revisions Cal has made to the RoE and I think we should get it posted asap. Any objections or suggestions should be made today. 440. Raskolnikov - 9/23/1999 2:03:13 AM I think requiring a permanent e-mail is a good idea, although it will be tough to keep track of the various freemail domain names. 441. CalGal - 9/23/1999 2:20:11 AM I made the changes and loaded it to the development site. I don't have access to production--there is one bug in the page I couldn't fix (it was 3 am and I was tired). For some reason, the page wasn't displaying in Netscape. No clue why. I asked Alistair to fix the bug if it was simple and install it.
442. Spudboy - 9/23/1999 9:29:25 AM I like the way this is resolving itself. However, I'm not sure that the rules necessarily address all situations in the appropriate manner, largely because they seem not to recognize differences in motive. Specifically, I'm wondering how they would be applied to the situation in the Fray in which my real-life ID became widely known.
To recap: I wrote a piece for Salon magazine. Irv, being my pal (but ignorant of my wish to remain firmly anonymous), posted a link in Fraygrant's Corner telling people to check out the spudboy article, but the link made no mention of my name. ThomasD, being my frequent antagonist, found the link, went to the rather higher-trafficked Politics thread, and reprinted most of its first several paragraphs. More to the point, he twice printed my full name in capital letters, and addressed me by my real name. (I contacted Irv after I'd noticed the posts -- a half-day later -- and the posts were removed about a day after they first appeared.)
(If one wanted a rough analogy to the CalGal/Seguine scenario, it would be the same as if Sequine had posted her cipher, after which God, upon figuring out that her real name was Serephina Goodbody, ran about The Mote and posted in the most popular threads here in all capital letters, telling everyone: "CalGal's real name is Serephina Goodbody!")
The difference, in my case: the original offending post was more accidental than malicious, and there was relatively little harm in it, especially if people had just clicked on the link, read it and then let it quietly drop, as I'd hoped would happen. The second offense, however, had the effect of not only publishing my name directly, but further drawing attention to it in the ensuing debate as I pleaded vainly with Thomas to stop using my IRL ID. And it was obviously malicious. 443. Spudboy - 9/23/1999 9:30:06 AM At worst, in my opinion, Irv should have been warned (complicated, of course, by the fact that he was the person issuing the warnings back then) and Thomas should have been reprimanded. Neither, however, occurred.
In the interim, however, Thomas's defenders have played down his offense by placing the blame on Irv as the original source of info. But the difference between the two was substantial. I know in my mind who was more deserving of punishment. And I don't think the new rules address the differences in the natures and means of the revelations. Moreover, I get the impression that under the proposed system, it would actually be Irv who would be punished, and Thomas would get off scot-free. 444. AceofSpades - 9/23/1999 11:44:34 AM
Clearing the refuse-to-post bug; disregard. 445. wabbit - 9/23/1999 11:58:23 PM Spudboy,
If Irv made the post linking to the article with your knowledge and explicit consent, he's in the clear. But you are right in that ThomasD would also not be punished in that case, since the link between your real name and online name would have been made in the post by Irv. If Irv made the post without your knowledge and consent, then both Irv and ThomasD would be in violation of the RoE as they are stated in post #418.
Do we need to specify that one should not post links to anything that reveals someone else's personal info? 446. Nostradamus - 9/24/1999 1:40:31 AM I'm new here, and my position is sure to be a minority one, but I'll weigh in with my 2 cents anyway.
It seems to me that the more obsessive you become about protecting personal information that you've already been indiscreet enough to reveal the more interested people will become in finding and revealing that information.
It also seems to me that the more you rely on 'rules' and ban threats instead of trusting one another to behave like kind, considerate, polite, decent human beings, the more people will try to find loopholes to your rules, follow their literal meaning, and behave like jackasses.
447. Spudboy - 9/24/1999 2:38:31 AM Wabbit: I guess that was the point I was trying to get to -- that you can reveal a person's ID merely with a link. I would make that specification. (FWIW, Irv didn't have my permission, but then, I hadn't explained to him that I'd wanted to remain anonymous. Our only other for-publication writer at the time, cllrdr, had no compunction about revealing his ID, and I think most of my friends figured I probably felt the same.) 448. pseudoerasmus - 9/24/1999 10:02:07 PM So where are these new faces everyone has been wanting to invite? So far I've only seen one, and the rest are just the same old bloody mugs of yore. 449. CalGal - 9/25/1999 6:20:12 AM Pseudo--the number of new people signed up is amazing, considering we haven't done any real promotion. We've gotten people from the Poetry connection that Blaise provided, the CNN connection that Stone provided, and a decent amount of newbies from Tabletalk.
450. SoupIsGoodFood - 9/28/1999 12:49:30 AM What is the policy about people with access to the Mote user database speculating on the identity behind people's Mote handles? 451. SoupIsGoodFood - 9/28/1999 2:01:37 AM "CalGal" is still addressing me with a different handle (see "Try the Mote"). I strongly suggest that the people in charge here not share information they have gleaned from the user database. Thank you.
I await some response, preferably not from "CalGal". 452. dusty - 9/28/1999 2:22:29 AM SoupIsGoodFood
What leads you to believe she has access?
BTW, thanks for mentioning this Thread in Try the Mote, I didn't even know that it existed.
453. SoupIsGoodFood - 9/28/1999 3:32:46 AM It was reported either here or in another forum that "CalGal" has or has had access to the user database; she herself mentioned that in order to resolve another user's problem or to ban a disobedient user -- don't remember the details -- she accessed the database.
I don't like being referred to by another handle. I don't like the idea that she is possibly gaining information about me from the user database and divulging it publicly in this forum. I understood that that behavior was contrary to the rules. 454. SoupIsGoodFood - 9/28/1999 3:37:14 AM I quote:
"Personal information*
For 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.
Do not mess around with this rule.
Don't try to push the envelope.
Don't ask, "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.
* Public information
1. Has been revealed with the individual's knowledge and explicit consent
2. Has been explicitly linked to the individual's online identity"
I submit that "CalGal" is in violation of this rule.
|
