|
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. 455. 109109 - 9/28/1999 4:00:35 AM Soup
Yeah. You were absolutely impossible to tag. Your submission is denied on the basis of excess goofiness.
Oh wait.
I should be more formal.
The Court: These are serious charges. Cal, how do you plead?
Cal: Fucking Stevie Wonder could have guessed it was tp.
The Court: Motion denied on goofiness.
456. SoupIsGoodFood - 9/28/1999 4:24:21 AM Actually, I'd prefer to hear from "wabbit". 457. 109109 - 9/28/1999 4:26:20 AM Motion for transfer to a new judge - denied. 458. SoupIsGoodFood - 9/28/1999 7:22:33 AM wabbit, does "109109" speak for you and The Mote? 459. Dusty - 9/28/1999 8:04:35 AM I think I read the whole thread, but I missed why unregistering is a one-way street. Can someone explain? Frankly, it sounds infantile. 460. wabbit - 9/28/1999 8:08:24 AM Soup,
CalGal was given limited access by Alistair in order to delete a series of posts by a serial ID. She no longer has access to any information other than the Movies thread which she is hosting. I will ask CalGal not to refer to you by any name other than the moniker you are using now.
109109 speaks for himself. 461. CalGal - 9/28/1999 8:30:27 AM Heavens, there's no need for you to ask me, Wabbit.
Soup, had you requested, I would instantly have stopped referring to you by anything other than a version of your current moniker. I was unaware of your objections to the use of prior monikers, and I am sorry if I have defamed your previous moniker--or your current one--in any way. 462. JayAckroyd - 9/28/1999 10:38:01 AM CG--
I gotta say that I've been confused by references to past monikers, especially monikers in that other place. It's probably a good idea, both for the reason soup's expressing and to avoid insider references, to stick to cuurrent monickers.
Yes, I know when people change monikers there will be guessing games and stuff. Aside from the point that this is yet another problem with allowing monikers at all, it's still probably best to assume that you're close to a personal info boundary when you guess at monikers. 463. JayAckroyd - 9/28/1999 10:38:43 AM or stick to currrant monikers, which will be sweeter, at least. Sorry for the typo. 465. CalGal - 9/28/1999 11:49:55 PM God damn it. It wasn't hostility that caused me to mention Soup under his previous moniker in that last post, either. It was hurry and hangover. I'm sorry. Delete the post if it's a problem.
My point was that monikers are a different issue. I would hate to have to hammer them out, but the issue of multiples makes it a problem. This is not to suggest that Soup is a multiple--just that the whole conversation bumps into that subject. 466. wabbit - 9/29/1999 1:21:07 AM #464 has been deleted.
I know that the guessing games involving monikers are ubiquitous in all discussion forums, but perhaps we can just agree to use whatever monikers people have chosen for themselves here and try to avoid referencing previous/other monikers. Many people come here with histories from other forums; let's make some effort to work around previous animosities. I'm sure there will be ample opportunity to develop new ones. 467. dusty - 9/29/1999 2:01:13 AM # 459 is still unanswered. 468. CalGal - 9/29/1999 2:09:15 AM
you're close to a personal info boundary when you guess at monikers.
Actually, I disagree with that. There is a difference between the two issues: 1) anyone requesting not to be addressed by their previous moniker, 2) pretending not to be the person behind the previous moniker.
It is my current understanding that monikers have nothing at all to do with the RoE. As a matter of politeness, I have no issue with it.
Public vs. private information is one thing. Using monikers to obscure one's online identity is a different thing entirely.
BTW, it was not hostility that caused me to refer to Soup by his previous moniker. I am lamentably bad at remembering to update my internal database pointers. This becomes extremely problematic when the Name FK of "Current Girlfriend" in the table "Brother's Personal Data" has changed. 469. wabbit - 9/29/1999 2:40:22 AM Dusty,
I can't help you with #459, Alistair will have to answer that when he returns. 470. dusty - 9/29/1999 3:21:14 AM wabbit
Thanks. I saw AC's announcement, but no reason nor discussion. I guess I'll just have to wait till he returns. I thought someone else might find it odd, but maybe it's just me. 471. dusty - 9/29/1999 3:23:32 AM Although I note that AC is unregistered, so he won't be able to see the question or respond. Any thoughts? Should I email him? 472. wabbit - 9/29/1999 7:00:55 AM hahahaha! I didn't notice that he was unregistered! I guess e-mail will be the way to go. He'll be back in about a week. 473. Nostradamus - 9/29/1999 11:58:57 AM As I recall, AC thought the unregister idea would make it easier to judge when to discontinue this thread. My hunch is that this thread will be here for a long time, but since nobody else has unregistered, what's the harm in leaving things as they are? 474. RosettaSTONE - 9/29/1999 1:58:29 PM So you are even deleting posts in the secret-cell thread? Amazing.
I came here to get you advise on promoting the mote in TT.
What do you think about sending drafted promotional emails to some TT members encouraging them to try mote? We might be able to use their posted email addresses listed when you click their moniker.
|
