|
574. PsychProf - 2/1/2000 1:14:50 AM Sorry...I should have posted this here...
Cellar...did Cal pose with the understanding that the pic
would appear on a website...did you ask her
permission?...I don't give a crap about the law here, I only
care about your perceived personal responsibilty. Please
elucidate. 575. CalGal - 2/1/2000 1:16:30 AM Ad,
I'm not obsessed. I thought I was explaining. As I just said, I will try not to mention any past information out of courtesy.
But I was also trying to explain the previous discussion on the larger point.
If you have revealed the information online--if you yourself have made the information public and the information is not only available, but linked to your identity, then it is no longer private information.
Here is the RoE definition:
- Has been revealed with the individual's knowledge and explicit consent
- Has been explicitly linked to the individual's online identity
You revealed the information yourself, and the information is explicitly linked to your online identity. If, otoh, you were the subject of a magazine article under your real name but never linked it in or mentioned that you were Sally Spitnpolish, then no one could link it in and say it was you.
If you have made information public that you would now rather keep private, you have every right to request that people refrain from mentioning it. If someone continually brought up this information for no other reason other than to harass you, that can be considered abusive.
I don't see anything wrong with that policy, and I think any change to restrict it to this forum would be very problematic.
This subject was covered at great length in the previous discussion, so I was just summarizing the conclusion.576. AceofSpades - 2/1/2000 1:17:05 AM
Here's the math:
Assholes like Cellar will make it hard for Wabbit.
So-- how about this: Let's ban assholes like Cellar who persist in revealing personal info. No more hard work for Wabbit, ay?
I am confident Cellar would not return, and if he did, he could only hide his ID for three seconds. How long could he possibly go without mentioning his book, "Open Remainder Bin"? 577. Cazart - 2/1/2000 1:17:40 AM IOW, the 'rules' apply to others. Not CalGal. 578. Indiana Jones - 2/1/2000 1:21:46 AM Or how much he wants to bonk Jude Law. 579. KuligintheHooligan - 2/1/2000 1:25:10 AM I would support the following:
If there is some personal information that has been voluntarily revealed by a Motie, but in time that person no longer wants that information revealed, and states that clearly, and THEN someone reveals it, ban them.
It seems clear that CalGal willingly had her picture taken but didn't know it would end up on a website. Then it did, and then she asked that it not be hotlinked. At that point, her wishes should be respected, out of common courtesy.
If for some odd reason I didn't want anybody new to the Mote to know that my first name is Victor, and I asked that my first name not be revealed here, then it shouldn't be revealed. Regardless of whether or not I had willingly revealed it early.
The problem, of course, is keeping track of these things and being aware of the new wishes by each individual. But I don't think it is beyond the realm of the Mote "authorities" to be allowed to make the determination if malice was intended in revealing said personal data. And it seems clear to me that, if a person asks that said date not be revealed, and someone goes ahead and does it anyway, that "malice" is present. And hence bannable. 580. Adrianne - 2/1/2000 1:25:48 AM
Stop it.
You are obsessed.
I have virtually stopped posting on this site because you reply to EVERYTHING THAT I POST as if it was directed at you, never mind whether you had participated in the conversation previously, never mind that you have nothing to add that isn't personal nastiness, never mind that you post...yes, non sequiteurs.
I avoid you. I ignore you. I (have, up to recent events) refrained from insulting you and despite the temptation to do otherwise, I haven't commented on this latest brouhaha that you (colour me shocked) have miraculously found yourself in the middle of.
Just shut the eff up, why don't you? 581. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/1/2000 1:27:34 AM Ace:
You seem to think that access to the Mote is more important than privacy.
Hahaha. Surely you realize I've been one of the most outspoken advocates of privacy concerns in our forum since early days at the old place. I was instrumental in getting the bosses there to agree to the privacy rule (which was at that time unique to online forums).
You either fail to see my point or intentionally avoid it. No sweat. I'm sure there are others who understand what I'm saying. 582. AceofSpades - 2/1/2000 1:32:45 AM
"You either fail to see my point or intentionally avoid it."
Your point? Your "point," Irv, was proving your position by merely restating it ("It's not our job... because it's a matter of principle").
You also don't want to ban people because it puts Wabbit on the "firing line." It also takes work, apparently, to the job (enforcing privacy) which you admit is necessary; you feel it requires much, much to work to extend the privacy rule to Table Talk.
If there are rhetorical fireworks somewhere I'm missing out on, please point me to them-- I like fireworks. 583. AceofSpades - 2/1/2000 1:36:48 AM
I, on the other hand, point out that a banning rule without the backdoor rule is a nullity, because idiots like Cellar and Cazart can simply out personal information at Table Talk, to the SAME PEOPLE WHO POST HERE ON THE MOTE, and Irv wants to reassure them that that's "Okay and unobjectionable and have fun, guys."
As I said earlier: We've passed a law against libel, with the exception that if it's printed on pink paper, it's not libel. And guess what color paper all libel will be printed on in the future?
Incidentally, Cellar's already duplicated his personal-outing violation HERE. 584. CalGal - 2/1/2000 1:37:28 AM Just shut the eff up, why don't you?
?????
You asked a policy question. This is the policy thread. I answered it because it was something that was discussed earlier.
The rest of your rant is pointless. Really, I don't care why you don't post here--although I think you're a wuss if you let anyone, yes, even me! keep you away.
You can't come into the policy thread, ask questions, and then selectively choose who answers. 585. AceofSpades - 2/1/2000 1:37:34 AM
So, you see, it really doesn't require more work-- the same assholes who will out personal information on TT will also do it here. Might as well catch them on their earliest offenses and be done with them. 586. CalGal - 2/1/2000 1:39:17 AM Ace, could you just discuss the issue without slashing and burning everyone?
And in the interest of doing the same, I apologize for calling Ad pompom fluff. 587. AceofSpades - 2/1/2000 1:42:16 AM
Slash and burn who? Irv?
Puh-leeze. He assured me I was "just missing his point," so I restated "his point" for him to show that I did not miss it at all, though it was so slight I might well have.
Cellar?
After what he just did, he deserves to be slashed and burned.
He won't be, of course. 588. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/1/2000 1:44:02 AM Ace:
Thanks for proving my point. If you say things like "you feel it requires much, much to work to extend the privacy rule to Table Talk. " then you have no idea what I'm saying.
I've never said or indicated anything of the sort. The amount of work involved is completely irrelevant.
I also have never said I disagree with banning.
In fact, everything you said in 582 is made up and bears no relation to the points I made.
Please continue. Just leave me out of it. 589. AceofSpades - 2/1/2000 1:50:50 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.
I said: You had merely restated your conclusion as evidence ("It is silly because it is not our job").
You said:
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.
I said that you said: 1) That while you admit the need for banning (I did not claim that you opposed banning; I explicitly stated you supported banning), you thought extending the banning rule to TT was too much work ("who is going to do all this deleting and banning and re-banning?"); and 2) that this banning puts Wabbit on the "firing line."
Once again, if your "real points" are so craftilly hidden amidst these statements that my feeble intellect cannot grasp them, I'd appreciate it if you simplified things for me.
Seems to me I have re-stated your arguments, such as they are, faithfully. 590. AceofSpades - 2/1/2000 1:59:32 AM
What I gleaned from your argument was this:
"It is simply not our job to ban people for outing personal information on TT," even if NOT banning them for such backdoor outings defeats the very purpose of the privacy rule in the first place. Why? Because it's "not our job," and that's "a matter of principle."
Further, "who will do all this banning and re-banning?" This point, while fair, applies equally to ANY scheme in which banning is contemplated, and our current RoE does contemplate banning-- indeed, it promises it.
Lastly, bannings put "Wabbit on the firing line." This, I suppose, means that there will be lots of anger about bannings. Once again, this applies equally to banning Cellar for the violation he committed here. And, once again, you seem to believe that the "bad feelings" engendered by banning are preferrable to actually banning someone for outing personal information. That is, we should not actually ban people for outing personal information, for, while that's bad, the hurt feelings caused by banning are worse.
If this means something else, I cannot guess what it might be. Wabbit was put on the "firing line" for other outings of personal information; I do not see the distinction why it's okay to put her on the "firing line" for outings HERE but beyond the pale to put her on the "firing line" for violations just next door in the Mote Cafe.
591. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/1/2000 2:09:35 AM Ace:
Please re-read my original comment on the issue. I stated my points clearly there, and also stated that I would not get into a debate about it.
I have only posted to protest your misrepresenting my comments, which you continue to do.
For example, when I mentioned that this would increase the workload of the moderator, I never mentioned or implied any work involving TT. That was your creation, and bears no relation to my post.
Please just ignore my posts if you can't understand them. And please don't keep putting words and meanings I never said nor intended into your interpretation of my posts. 592. AceofSpades - 2/1/2000 2:20:33 AM
Jesus, you're annoying. Your posts say NOTHING at all, and then when I attempt to divine meaning from your pap, you insist over and over, "You're missing my point."
Irv, when you figure out what the hell your point is, get back to me.
Here's the nonsense I've seen so far:
"It is enough that we are responsible for what is posted on our site."
AND WHY IS THAT, IRV?
"We have clear Rules of Engagement for this site, and we can clearly monitor those rules. We shouldn't be in the business of telling people what they can do elsewhere on the web... the rules for other sites are made by those who run those sites."
Ah... we shouldn't enforce our rules at TT BECAUSE we shouldn't enforce our rules at TT. Conclusion restated as evidence. Again and again, over and over.
And Irv insists: But you're avoiding my point.
No, Irv, I get your point: We shouldn't do this BECAUSE we shouldn't do this, and that's a matter of principle, and you feel strongly about it.
593. AceofSpades - 2/1/2000 2:23:41 AM
And then you go on:
If we try and extend our rules elsewhere, two things will happen:
1) Someone will inadvertently post something at TT (as Cellar did, for example) or somewhere else, and find him/herself in trouble at the Mote. And then we'll have to make an exception for that person. Once we start making exceptions, the rule is useless. The rule, as it stands now, and as it is applied to posts in the Mote, is clear and without exceptions.
I already pointed out: 1) Cellar's outings are not inadvertant, nor are Cazart's, and 2) we ALREADY make an exception for accidental, inadvertant, non-malicious outings HERE. There is no reason to assume, as you apparently do, that we would enforce our rules MORE DRACONIALLY than we do here.
2) People who are intent on causing trouble will see how much they can get away with. They'll start posting elsewhere, just to break the rule. It's human nature. If there is no rule, there's nothing for them to stretch. If we don't make it a major issue, but quietly enforce our rules, the problem is manageable. If our rules only apply here, we can enforce them.
And I already pointed out: They are not "pushing the rules" at TT, because we enforce NO RULES at TT.
And the piece de resistance:
I don't think we need to start extending our rules beyond this site, and I am very much against doing so.
Yes, you said that. Fifteen times now. You think that because you think that and we shouldn't do it because we shouldn't do it.
I'm sorry, Delphic One, but I am unable to divine Great Wisdom amidst these strewn intestines.
|
 |
Go To Mote #
|
|
