|
545. Adrianne - 1/31/2000 11:53:37 PM
Wabbit
Since it seems that we are revisiting the RoE....:-)
Recently, some of my personal information was revealed here on The Mote - stuff I had revealed on another forum. The motive was pure malice, it couldn't have been inadvertant, coming as it did from out of the blue and appropos of absolutely nothing being discussed.
I went to the RoE because I remembered (I thought) that we had made this a no-no (bringing up personal information that had not been revealed ON THE MOTE without express permission). I see that I misremembered, that that policy was not adopted.
I'd like to see that issue addressed again, iffen we're going to have another round of adjustments to the RoE.
546. JayAckroyd - 1/31/2000 11:54:07 PM Here's the banning position I want to discuss:
Banning doesn't work. It engenders more fuss and bother than its worth, and doesn't really keep people out. It's administratively intensive, and encourages bad discussions filled with enmity about who should be banned and why.
Thread management with hosts ranging from dictatorial to free-wheeling is working just fine. A block-another-user feature might also help keep the noise level down when graffiti artists come storming in.
547. Indiana Jones - 2/1/2000 12:00:24 AM I support banning people for revealing personal information. People choose to be anonymous for a reason. Threatening to remove this shield is an attempt to intimidate them from posting. Ergo, the person who uses this threat should lose the right to post.
The Mote is a great place, but it's not life-and-death. The number of posters here is probably low enough that we could effectively police such a ban better than at TT.
If the RoE mean anything, then both Cellar and cazart should be banned. I think a poster's overall contribution to the forum should be taken into consideration before passing sentence, but continued egregious violations have to warrant the death penalty. 548. AceofSpades - 2/1/2000 12:02:57 AM
If the RoE mean anything, then both Cellar and cazart should be banned.
I don't think it means this at all. They should have fair warning. I believe they'll both stop if my interpretation is adopted.
If they don't stop, that would be the time to discuss suspension et al.
Of course, if no rule is adopted, they will continue being pricks because it brings them pleasure to be a prick. 549. JayAckroyd - 2/1/2000 12:08:33 AM Don't you see that banning simply encourages some people to see how far they can go? Then they get banned, scream about it here and on the table talk forum (which to my mind is doing much more harm than good, and blame myself for its continued existence).
And then they come back under a new name. Ace's experiment with AOL shows it's harder than I thought, but it's still not hard.
Even banning IDs is kinda worthless. It's easy enough to come up with a new id that is enough like your old ID that everyone knows who it is.
And every time the topic comes up, we get consumed with whom should be banned and why and who likes whom and on and on.
It's not worth it. The value of the sanction isn't worth the effort involved enforcing it, and the pain that it causes as soon as someone tries to get themselves banned.
As it is the, moderator is a thankless task, and wabbit's been stuck with both that role and the gatekeeper role for some time. Wabbit won't do this forever. How easy do you think it will be to recruit a replacement if we continually suffer through this nonsense? 550. Indiana Jones - 2/1/2000 12:11:12 AM Ace: Doesn't the rule already exist? How can you ask for punishment for someone on TT if we don't enforce the rule here?
Cazart wants to be banned...that's obvious. It's okay with me whatever's decided (both, one, neither).
If someone published my real name or a photo of me once, I'd sure want them punished. If CalGal is okay with Cellar sliding this time, maybe that ought to weigh in on the decision. Neither he nor cazart demonstrates much remorse. 551. Indiana Jones - 2/1/2000 12:12:32 AM Jay: I originally opted for "shunning" versus banning, especially in the case of disruptors. If we're not going to enforce the privacy issue, though, we should just repeal it. 552. CalGal - 2/1/2000 12:25:19 AM Recently, some of my personal information was revealed here on The Mote - stuff I had revealed on another forum. The motive was pure malice, it couldn't have been inadvertant, coming as it did from out of the blue and appropos of absolutely nothing being discussed.
The motive was not pure malice, you little piece of pompom fluff. You regularly discussed your spouse's occupation on the Fray, and refer to your spouse as a "Officer Friendly" on this forum. It most certainly was appropos to what being discussed--you just didn't think the connection was relevant.
I had no idea you considered it private information. As I said to you in the Inferno, if it had been, I would have apologized immediately.
We made it clear that we could not put the genie back into the bottle. If someone releases the information at any time, it is no longer private. I have already mentioned this as a relevant data point with Stone, who used his name as a login at one point. The mere use of the name does not entail a violation, IMO. What does constitute a violation, IMO, is the malicious use of information about another person that the poster knows is no longer openly available. That is the category that Cellar's use of Stone's real name falls under.
Continued use of private information after requests not to use it can be considered abusive, and there is still an out in the RoE for abuse.
Were you to publicly request that you didn't want your spouse's occupation referred to ever again, then I would comply with that request out of courtesy. However, that includes you not referring to his occupation either, so give up on "Officer Friendly". 553. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/1/2000 12:25:24 AM To my knowledge, Cellar never posted the photo in this forum. I believe CalGal confirmed this recently.
Cazart was given a warning when the photo was posted in the Inferno (and subsequently deleted). Wabbit made it clear that if it happened again, cazart would be banned.
The rule is clear enough: if personal information is posted, it will be deleted and the violator banned (although I think a warning is in order for first offenses, as in cazart's case).
I don't know anything about the situation Ad mentioned above, but it sure sounds like a RoE violation to me. At the very least, the post should be deleted and a warning issued.
There should be no sharing of personal info against the wishes of a participant, period. 554. AceofSpades - 2/1/2000 12:28:15 AM
"Don't you see that banning simply encourages some people to see how far they can go?"
No. If they do, they get banned. They do not seem to come back.
"Then they get banned, scream about it here and on the table talk forum (which to my mind is doing much more harm than good, and blame myself for its continued existence). "
So? They don't come back here.
Further, several people have modified their behavior under a threat of ban.
I myself am one of them. You, as tech guy, might have access to a dozen e-mail accounts. I don't. If I get banned, I stay banned, because I have no way to work around the ban. Furthermore, I wouldn't BOTHER trying even if I had an inkling of how to do it.
"And then they come back under a new name. Ace's experiment with AOL shows it's harder than I thought, but it's still not hard."
Yeah? Who's done it?
I couldn't. (Not that I was banned; I was trying to come in under a spoof ID.)
"Even banning IDs is kinda worthless. It's easy enough to come up with a new id that is enough like your old ID that everyone knows who it is."
If "everyone knows," you get banned.
Either you admit to who you are to say "hi" to your friends and get banned, or you pretend to be someone else. Either way, it's a punishment.
"It's not worth it. The value of the sanction isn't worth the effort involved enforcing it, and the pain that it causes as soon as someone tries to get themselves banned."
Because you DON'T CARE about the violation. So it isn't "worth it" to you.
Much like someone with perfect health saying, "It's not worth passing a law to prevent genetic information from being used against me by insurers." Well, duh-- of course it's not "worth it" to you. 555. AceofSpades - 2/1/2000 12:31:44 AM
"the pain that it causes as soon as someone tries to get themselves banned"
You guys are... I don't know what. You postulate someone has "tried" to get himself banned, and then you feel "pain" when they get banned.
Pardon me for not "feeling" as much as you do. 556. Adrianne - 2/1/2000 12:39:57 AM
Hey, Psycho Hagatha
I wasn't talking about that, so your stalker-friendly rant was, as usual, a nonsequiteur.
557. CalGal - 2/1/2000 12:45:34 AM Oh, be silly. You most certainly accused me of violating the RoE. So if that isn't the case in question, you should be more specific to avoid unwanted rejoinders.
558. Adrianne - 2/1/2000 12:48:17 AM
Ellie Mae
Yes, it was something you did, you viscious miserable wank. Yes, it even occurred in that conversation, you lying, vermin-infested hag.
But it wasn't my husband's occupation.
And I wasn't talking to you, stalker-babe.
559. CalGal - 2/1/2000 12:50:12 AM No, Cellar did post the picture in this forum and I told him not to. I asked wabbit to delete it, but I didn't make a big deal over it. This was before Cazart and Floyd found it and started using it, and I was hoping the whole mess would be dropped.
Cellar stopped posting it in this forum, but did post it more than once after that in TT, which is when Caz and Floyd started posting it. He has now deleted the picture, but it is on Nostradamus's website--along with another needless slam towards someone else in the picture.
Vic, from the Suggestions thread:
No, I did not link in the photo. I did not give my permission for it to be on Cellar's website. When I posed for the picture, Cellar didn't have a website--at least not one that I knew of. 560. CalGal - 2/1/2000 12:52:29 AM Yes, it even occurred in that conversation, you lying, vermin-infested hag.
?????
Then I have no idea what it is. But as I responded to you at the time, anything I know about you was learned from your own posts. As I believe I also said at the time--and repeated above--I will not make any reference to information you'd just rather not be mentioned any more. I'm just not sure what the information was, at this point. 561. JayAckroyd - 2/1/2000 12:52:34 AM Ace,
You're not the one who has to keep a collection of a couple of hundred email address stubs. Wabbit and Alistair have to.
You're not the one who has to deal with FX* coming back under a new email address.
I agree that banning a persona has some weight, and I accept that the last time we had this discussion, I was in a clear minority in not wanting bans.
I just want to see if the mood has changed any. 562. Adrianne - 2/1/2000 12:54:07 AM
"????"
"anything I know about you was learned from your own posts."
IN ANOTHER FORUM of course, but let's not quibble, right?
563. CalGal - 2/1/2000 12:54:18 AM I see no reason why we shouldn't have banning in our arsenal. I also expect that some policy issues will cause heated discussion, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. That's why we have the policy thread. 564. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/1/2000 12:55:17 AM Ace:
Yes, Irv, your position is that enforcing a "backdoor" rule is silly because it's... silly.
Oh yeah: And it's also "nonsensical."
I never said either of those things. What do you gain by making up words I never said?
I said we should not be policing other sites because it's not our job. Our job is to take care of the Mote.
Which brings up another point... who is going to do all this deleting and banning and re-banning? I know our current moderator isn't interested in doing it, and we don't even have a gatekeeper.
It isn't easy to find volunteers willing to spend time and effort on this site and willing to put themselves on the firing line to boot.
|
