|
666. Angel-Five - 2/16/2000 3:12:12 PM Gotta do this. 667. Angel-Five - 2/16/2000 3:28:42 PM Let me put it like this; although I've never done the large scale emailing you do, I've emailed a lot of people in this forum at one time or another; whether or not my emails have ever been forwarded by the intended recipients, I don't know, but one way or another schloads of people have gotten my name from my email address (it's my sig file). And while I'd imagine you have some edge in the personal dislike sweeps, I know that I've raised the ire of a few folks myself. So why is it that you have had personal information and personal things printed against your will several times now, while no one has ever threatened to do it to me that I can recall? 668. CalGal - 2/17/2000 1:52:13 AM Angel,
I don't wish to revisit old history; it has nothing to do with this. Worse, you are incorrectly stating old history, but if I correct you I play into your game.
So I'm not going to correct the inaccuracies, but move to the meta-point. Your entire premise is flawed. You are trying to portray a desire for privacy as a nice dangling carrot for people to use as a weapon. And you are using my experiences as an example to bolster your case.
Even if you were correct about my desire for privacy (and you are not), you can't prove anything by me.
Why?
Because I am a special case. Yes, people dislike you. Some people dislike you a lot. But in general, people don't dislike you enough to bother. You're not worth it, apparently.
Me, for whatever reason--I'm worth it. The CalGal Syndrome has been noted by many--most recently PseudoErasmus and JoeZan (whose mullings about a potential boyfriend named Guido remains my favorite analysis) and it causes otherwise sane and rational people to act like obsessed psychopaths. Some of those people cross the line from ranting about me online and in email to getting information and doing what they can to bother me, on the grounds that I deserve it. No doubt I do. A few people have gotten banned for revealing information about me--and the spooky thing is, I'm sure they think it was worth it. That's fixation, baby. You can't buy that kind of dedication, and it ain't garden variety dislike.
So there isn't much point in comparing you and me--or, in fact, me to anyone else when it comes to "dislike". We just aren't in the same league.
669. CalGal - 2/17/2000 1:55:56 AM In short, the use of privacy against me is nothing more than a symptom of the degree to which people despise me. They'd use any other rule that came to hand as well, or in fact any not a root cause of a problem with the privacy rules. If you can only make your case with me, you've got no case.
And, as I've already said, even if you did have a case, it would only be the case as to why you don't think privacy is important. You don't have a case for removing privacy as a means of benefitting the forum. And that's really the only case that matters.
So I won't be responding to any more posts about why you think the need for privacy is illogical, nor am I going to respond to your posts about why you think I'm plagued. As I said, you've been wrong far more than right.
But I'll be interested in reading any case you have for it benefitting the forum as a whole. And I'll let you know up front that the occasional policy debate or fracas due to exposure isn't something I consider a pain, so you'll have to come up with a pretty big benefit to offset it. 670. Angel-Five - 2/17/2000 7:12:32 AM What old history am I wrong about? I'm not, but if you don't want to engage on it, it's fine with me. I only brought it up to illustrate a point, and that point has been illustrated -- and it IS old history. And we don't have to engage over whether this CalGal syndrome is as one sided as you portray it, because, well, both sides have worked that argument pretty well and no one ever proves much. But the usage justification and defensibility of privacy in this forum is very much a point of debate, and your bizarre insistence that it is not bewilders me. How else can we draw comparison between the results and the influences of privacy and transparency? And we might as well get something straight: I'm not out to convince you, CalGal, of anything. Your mind is already made up and you've staked a lot of yourself on the privacy rules. It would be wonderful if you decided to come around, but you will not, and to be honest that doesn't matter at all to me. You jump into the discussion as per usual, announcing that you've already made up your mind, and then you tell me that I have to convince you? Why on earth would I bother? The purpose of having a dialogue on transparency, as I stated clearly at the beginning and as you've apparently chosen to conveniently misunderstand twice now, is to let people read and decide for themselves -- to at least make decisions that are more informed than if they hadn't read about it at all. Not to 'force' anyone to a decision, as you've tried to infer twice now. Not to fool people into defending transparency. Not to do anything but slowly raise the consciousness about the transparent option. It takes a lot of courage for a whole group to be willing to make that step together, and it will probably not happen in the Mote anytime soon. Yet if any small community I know of can make the step, despite your campaigning and specious arguments against it, it's here. 671. CalGal - 2/17/2000 7:51:50 AM Your mind is already made up and you've staked a lot of yourself on the privacy rules.
Not at all. I would leave if the decision were made to do away with them at this point in time, but I'm not particularly concerned about that possibility. However, times and norms change. I don't see them changing that much, but you never know.
I do note your continuing attempts to describe my motives and frame of mind. Whatever jerks your chain, I suppose.
I'm not out to convince you, CalGal, of anything.
I never thought you were. You are out to convince others. I'm out to ensure that the debate isn't framed incorrectly.
And we don't have to engage over whether this CalGal syndrome is as one sided as you portray it,
You're quite right. We don't. Mainly because I would never be so foolish as to debate such nonsense. It is irrelevant to my point whether or not it is onesided, so I didn't even bring it up. Read again, and note that the only thing I said was that I was hated, and that no doubt I deserve whatever I get.
672. Angel-Five - 2/17/2000 8:27:12 AM
(me)Your mind is already made up and you've staked a lot of yourself on the privacy rules.
(you)Not at all. I would leave if the decision were made to do away with them at this point in time, but I'm notparticularly concerned about that possibility. However, times and norms change. I don't see them changing that much, but you never know.
I do note your continuing attempts to describe my motives and frame of mind. Whatever jerks your chain, I suppose. Whatever do you mean 'not at all'? When your very next sentence is that you'd leave if someone ever decided to do away with the privacy laws? Please, that doesn't make sense. As for your mind not being made up, please, compared to The reason I support privacy is because I feel that this forum is better off for it. I know all the arguments for transparency, and none of them are compelling enough to require transparency instead of allowing it.
It is really that simple, as far as I'm concerned. we have a really big contradiction. I'm not characterizing your frame of mind and your motives, CalGal; I'm saying what you yourself say, at least part of the time. (me)I'm not out to convince you, CalGal, of anything.
(you)I never thought you were. You are out to convince
others. Then why should I present a case tailored specifically to you, as you ask, when you say But I'll be interested in reading any case you have for it benefitting the forum as a whole. And I'll let you know up front that the occasional policy debate or fracas due to exposure isn't something I consider a pain, so you'll have to come up with a pretty big benefit to offset it. 673. CalGal - 2/17/2000 8:37:36 AM But the usage justification and defensibility of privacy in this forum is very much a point of debate, and your bizarre insistence that it is not bewilders me.
I'm not surprised it bewilders you. But that's how it goes.
The RoE is not a constitution. It is a set of rules that we all put in place because the consensus of the forum is that these rules make the forum a better place. You want to change a rule, you really do need to start there.
How else can we draw comparison between the results and the influences of privacy and transparency?
Who says we need to compare them? As far as I'm concerned, you only need to compare them if you wish to argue that a transparent forum would be a better place. Then you can set up the criteria. But you are starting from the premise that the privacy rule is causing a problem that requires fixing. I think you should state the problem, state how it's hurting the forum, and state how this problem could be fixed by removing the rule. At that point, people can discuss the advantages of privacy in comparison to the benefits of transparency vis a vis its impact on the forum.
Then, if enough people decide "wow, Angel's right! The forum might be a better place if we were all transparent! But before we make up our mind, we should think about the rationale for privacy. Why do people want privacy? What are the advantages?"
And then you could go ahead and analyze the reasons, pro and con.
It is much easier, of course, to ask people to justify a rule, then analyze their reasons. If you can make the reasons disappear or seem irrelevant, it can often fool people into thinking you've made the case for the change itself.
Unless you run into someone who doesn't fall for that approach, and requests a justification for considering changing the rule in the first place. 674. CalGal - 2/17/2000 8:43:11 AM The purpose of having a dialogue on transparency, as I stated clearly at the beginning and as you've apparently chosen to conveniently misunderstand twice now, is to let people read and decide for themselves
No, I haven't tried to misunderstand it. The dialogue on transparency is nothing more than a debate over a rule change. You wish to let people read and decide for themselves. I support you in your effort.
But just as you want people to read and decide, I want to remind people that we have the rules for a reason, and the reasons are because we like it that way and we think the forum is better off for the rules. I want to remind them that the betterment of the forum is a perfectly valid reason for having rules, and that we don't have to justify the rationale behind any rule other than saying, "We think it works best that way." And that anyone who wants to change a rule, or debate a change in rules, should start from that premise and demonstrate how a change will make the forum better. 675. CalGal - 2/17/2000 8:57:37 AM When your very next sentence is that you'd leave if someone ever decided to do away with the privacy laws?
You said I have "staked a lot of myself" in the privacy rules. Perhaps we have a different definition of "staked a lot of myself". I assumed, based on context, that you meant I was personally vested in the privacy rules, that I would take it as a personal defeat if they were changed. I am not and I do not. If a majority of people here wanted to be open and transparent, I would wish them well. I would not try to prevent the change--as if I could. But I would not stay, since I don't feel it is safe. I do not consider that to be "staking a lot of myself" in the privacy rules, but rather my own determination of what is best for me.
You also made it sound unique, which also supported the interpretation of "staked a lot of myself" that I describe. But there are many people here who would leave if they were required to use their real names, or if any of their private information could be revealed without any problems. You are saying that these people, too, have staked a lot of themselves on the privacy rules?
Then why should I present a case tailored specifically to you, as you ask, when you say
Again, I see no demand for a specifically tailored case. I said that if you continued to make the argument about me, I wouldn't respond. But if you wanted to make the case for an improved forum, I'd be interested. If you had no desire to make the case, then you of course don't have to. I see nothing in there that implies a demand for you to convince me, an assumption of your goals, or anything else. Merely a statement of interest and intent. You get to be Mr. Phelps and choose whether or not to accept it.
676. Angel-Five - 2/17/2000 9:59:31 AM I'm not the one who made the argument about you, CalGal. You did, which I'm sure is shocking to all. All I did was use you as an example, and I used you correctly for that example. I pointed you out as someone who was vocally in support of privacy who tried to restrict their private information and who had had much less success than other people who had never visibly bothered in the first place. You answered with a quibble that was completely unrelated to the thrust of the point (that I'd misunderstood your reasons for wanting privacy) and a fallacious retort (that people outed you because they despised you, even though lots of unliked people here never get outed). Then after the several posts in which you yourself use yourself as an example, suddenly you don't want the argument to be about yourself anymore.It never was, until you made it so. The RoE is not a constitution. It is a set of rules that we all put in place because the consensus of the forum is that these rules make the forum a better place. You want to change a rule, you really do need to start there. What's this 'we' and 'you' crap? Who drafted the ROE? Who implemented the ROE? Who says we need to compare them? As far as I'm concerned, you only need to compare them if you wish to argue that a transparent forum would be a better place. Then you can set up the criteria. Yes, of course. Why then did you just say that the influences and results of privacy, indeed, anything at all about privacy, is unimportant? Your analysis of the reasons for privacy is irrelevant to
your case. The forum doesn't have to care why people
want to remain private. Remember? You were so bizarrely insistent on that point that I hit it several times -- we don't just decide we want it or we don't, we decide based upon the causes and effects and our observations and deductions of those causes and effects become our reasons. 677. Angel-Five - 2/17/2000 9:59:41 AM Every rule we've considered in this forum so far has been debated in those terms. And now suddenly you've come around? But you are starting from the premise that the privacy rule is causing a problem that requires fixing. Not at all. You're mistaking an introductory, related point for a starting premise. But before we make up our mind, we should think about the rationale for privacy. Why do people want privacy? What are the advantages?" And then you could go ahead and analyze the reasons, pro and con. I rest my case and you prove my point. We should either think about the rationale for privacy or we should not thing about the rationale for privacy, CalGal; make up your mind, because we can't do both and yet that's what you're advocating. Unless you run into someone who doesn't fall for that approach, and requests a justification for considering changing the rule in the first place. Why, exactly, should anyone follow any rule that no one can give a defensible reason for? No, wait, I'll rephrase that. Why exactly should anyone expect others to follow any rule that no one can give a defensible reason for? If there's no reason to expect others to follow the rule, then, well, hell. Why should anyone follow it, much less order others to on the pain of banning et cetera? No, I haven't tried to misunderstand it. The dialogue on transparency is nothing more than a debate over a rule change. You wish to let people read and decide for themselves. I support you in your effort. That's good. Glad you've grasped that. But just a short while ago you said (me)Furthermore, I have never once spoken of forcing transparency
(you)Must be a misunderstanding. Why have this discussion, if you don't think it should be forced? . Nuff said, I trust. Your positions in this matter migrate a great deal -- if you're going to sustain an argument, you ought to sustain your position. 678. CalGal - 2/17/2000 10:46:03 AM What's this 'we' and 'you' crap?
We = The Mote.
You = anyone who wants to change policy.
I pointed you out as someone who was vocally in support of privacy who tried to restrict their private information and who had had much less success than other people who had never visibly bothered in the first place.
Yes, that's what I understood you to say. And this is incorrect.
As for the rest, your translations defy credibility and I've got better things to do. I think you got the point--and if you didn't, anyone reading will. So we'll see what happens next.
679. Angel-Five - 2/17/2000 11:29:01 AM What point? You say I don't give any reasons for transparency, when I have (and if you still insist not, CalGal, I'll tell you what: I'll bet you twelve days of my silence on this forum against twelve days of yours that I have, and if you'll take that bet, I'll be happy to point them all out -- otherwise, I believe, you should cease going on about how I don't give positive reasons for transparency). You say first that there's no reason to argue about the rationales and reasons for privacy, and then you change your mind and say that those rationales and reasons should be examined. You claim that you understand the reason I bring up the point, then show you haven't, then claim you have all along. So what is your point? That we should compare privacy with transparency? No joke. If you'll look back, that's how this discussion started. That's mostly what's been happening, until you came in, claimed I didn't understand why you believed in privacy, talked about how all your troubles are because people despise you, and wrapped yourself up in the conversation.... never once acknowledging the simple fact that I used you as an example to prove -- the privacy rules do not work. The fact is simple: whether or not you're the most despised Motier, in quantity or quality of loathing generated, is irrelevant to the fact that the privacy rules demonstrably have not worked in your case. 680. Angel-Five - 2/17/2000 11:30:37 AM And you can talk about people like Wabbit who don't get trespassed against because they're well liked, but somehow you manage to miss the obvious correlation to those statements: there's no need for us to have a privacy rule to protect the people who aren't going to get outed anyway! The only reason we have any need to have a privacy rule is to protect the people who are disliked enough that people will out them for revenge, and if that privacy rule isn't going to protect them, then there's no need for it to be on the books at all. Especially when it means that someone can be banned or suspended for a simple slip of the fingers. It's important to remember that the privacy rule isn't a harmless thing. 681. Angel-Five - 2/17/2000 12:20:52 PM I pointed you out as someone who was vocally in support of
privacy who tried to restrict their private information and who
had had much less success than other people who had never
visibly bothered in the first place. What's 'incorrect' about that, CalGal? That you're vocally in support of privacy? That you have tried to restrict your personal information? That you've had much less success at that than other people who have never visibly bothered to restrict their information? All of these are things that you have acknowledged already. There's nothing funky about their union. 682. Angel-Five - 2/17/2000 2:49:38 PM BTW: In retrospect, using you as an example might not have been the most tactful thing in the world for me to do. I also don't suppose I needed to comment on 'making yourself the center of debate', because that's incidental to the discussion. I think that discussion between the two of us is liable enough to generate heat without me spiking it, and I'd really like the discussion of transparency to be something other people are comfortable to participate in. So I'm sorry if any of my commentary indirectly heated your temper -- whether or not it bothered you. Given that your main point -- that transparency and privacy should be analyzed together if one wants to choose wisely and fairly between one and the other -- is one that's already in evidence, did you have any further objection? 683. Seguine - 2/20/2000 6:10:35 AM A-5: "The only reason we have any need to have a privacy rule is to protect the people who are disliked enough that people will out them for revenge, and if that privacy rule isn't going to protect them, then there's no need for it to be on the books at all."
I almost agree with this, but a) absent some such rule I do think women may perceive themselves to be at some disadvantage and b) my take on the RoE topic has always been somewhat different anyway.
Sometimes the intent of a rule is not to prevent a particular outcome but to signal the inadvisability of certain behavior for any number of valid but unspecified reasons. I think the no-outing rule need not protect anyone's identity in order to be valid. But that leaves A-5's implicit question: Well then, what is the point(s) of the rule?
684. Seguine - 2/20/2000 6:11:34 AM I have advocated privately for a different set of rules than the Mote is governed by currently. (I should add here, re Message # 678 that "We" manifestly does not include those animals that are less equal than others. I don't recall that "The Mote" ever voted on the RoE fait accompli.) The point of prohibiting outing and disclosures of personal information should have nothing to do with whether that kind of behavior does or doesn't result in actual injury, or whether identities can really be kept secret on the internet. It should have everything to do with the limits of incivility, which should be the fundament of the Mote's RoE.
It should be unacceptable for someone to insult or bait a person using personal information. For instance, in a recent argument with RPike I could conceivably have made ugly remarks about his wife's ethnicity (which he has disclosed), tied those remarks into his sense of aggrieved Judaism, etc. Had I done such a thing, the remarks ought to have been summarily deleted and I should have received a canned warning. Subsequent similar attacks ought to have merited a banning.
The same should go for disclosure of any other personal information not clearly put forth in the context in question by the person being discussed--and that should include RL ID, email or physical address, photographs, and so on. None of this stuff, even if it has been disclosed before, needs to be brought up in most discussions, and it should probably never be brought up in argument.
685. Seguine - 2/20/2000 6:12:04 AM In short, there should be no distinction between the existing Rule #1 (which is sophomorically written) and Rule #2 (which sounds like an invitation to transgression). As far as I know, the only reason there is a distinction at the moment is because CalGal thinks it essential to deem outing of identities more egregious than verbally asaulting people on the basis of what has been learned about them over time. I figure the latter is at least as bad for a forum; probably worse, as there are many forums that operate transparently, and many fewer that maintain an interesting level of conversation in the midst of raging, intimate flame wars.
Finally, lest someone object that my version of the Rules might depress a certain amount of creatively hostile levity, I submit that it will not. It should still be possible to lampoon handles, insult opponents' mental acuity in all sorts of ways, and generally behave imperfectly. Those who aren't up for all that might be advised that some days you rape the cossack; some days the cossack rapes you.
|
