|
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. 565. CalGal - 2/1/2000 1:01:25 AM IN ANOTHER FORUM of course, but let's not quibble, right?
Right. We determined at the time we started that use of information learned from that person in an online forum was not a violation. How can someone know what personal data is verboten and what isn't? For example, what if I had referred to your husband's occupation and you got fussed? I'm supposed to know, to keep track whether you mentioned something as basic as family background here or in the Fray?
I remember scoffing at your perpetual use of non sequiturs and bringing up something that I thought was public information as an utterly random selection to mock your tendency to do this. There was no malice in the selection per se.
As I said, all you have to do is request that people don't refer to the online information again. In my case, I won't bring up what I think you were talking about again. However, I don't know for sure, and god knows you've gone through a lot of personal data at the Fray and brought up some subset of it here. This will probably happen again--if not with me, than someone else. 566. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/1/2000 1:04:05 AM Niner
Wrt to your post in the Suggestions thread (why can't everyone keep this all here?):
If Jay were to out cazart's personal info, it would not be equivalent to the pic on Cellar's site.
Since Jay is an "official" of the Mote, participants here can reasonably expect that any information shared with those in power will be kept confidential.
But the point is moot, since Jay has not and would not (by his own admission) reveal any personal information. 567. CalGal - 2/1/2000 1:05:24 AM BTW, I agree with Ace. Cellar's post should be deleted and while I don't know that he should be banned, I wouldn't object to his suspension. That was shitty. 568. Adrianne - 2/1/2000 1:05:36 AM
"????"
"I remember scoffing at your perpetual use of non sequiturs and bringing up something that I thought was public information as an
utterly random selection to mock your tendency to do this. There was no malice in the selection per se. "
No, I was making fun of YOUR use of non sequiteurs, idiot.
Hell, I won't even bother refuting your last post - it's a lie from start to finish. Not unexpected, lying's your style.
Hey, take it to the playpen, Melba! I'm trying to discuss something with wabbit and the rest of the crowd. Your obsession with me is getting really, really old.
569. AceofSpades - 2/1/2000 1:09:11 AM
Irv:
You said:
I never said any such thing. I oppose this silliness on the grounds of principle, not because it would be "hard to enforce." It is simply not our job to enforce our rules elsewhere on the web. Period.
So, what does this translate to? "It is not our job to enforce our rules elsewhere BECAUSE it's not our job. It is silly because it is silly on principle."
As for the additional work necessary (Jay's point):
No one need patrol TT for violations. 1) if we pass a no-backdoor rule, it will all but stop, and 2) if it doesn't stop, CalGal or I will find it-- no need for Wabbit or Alistair to be involved at this stage.
If a banning is necessary, that does require work. But, as I've said, *I* can't get into the Mote with any other name but my own.
570. Indiana Jones - 2/1/2000 1:12:31 AM I'll be happy to join the Mote SS.
RS probably would too. All of chaotic evil people secretly love it when we get to enforce law and order. 571. AceofSpades - 2/1/2000 1:13:33 AM
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.
The firing line? Jesus, I don't understand all this handwringing.
It's a simple rule. It is as EASY AS PIE not to violate it. If someone DOES violate it, why can't we just BAN that someone without crying about it endlessly?
You seem to think that access to the Mote is more important than privacy. I don't. I'd much rather be banned from the Mote than have someone broadcast my personal information publicly. 572. AceofSpades - 2/1/2000 1:13:54 AM
Indy:
Heh, heh. 573. AceofSpades - 2/1/2000 1:14:13 AM
We'll be the C.I.A-holes.
|
