|
68. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 10:06:19 PM Jay,
The problem will continue to be one of interpretation and boundaries. Since some of us do freely give away information publicly--my office phone number is 212-987-4680--and we will consort with each other in real life, and we will obtain personal information from different sources, what can we say and not say?
I think it should be workable that if a poster reveals something in the Mote, others can use it and any reasonable inferences thereof. Fuzzy cases are fuzzy, and if a poster thinks a host is not being aggressive enough in banning unreasnable inferences, they can complain to the management trio. But such small scale stuff is barely worth a stern warning, certainly not a suspension.
If I mention something about you and airline capacity planning, have I overstepped a bound? If I make a false assertion about your relationship with your dog (mine's fine, btw), is that overstepping a bound?
Not if I’ve revealed it online or if it’s an obvious inference. But – if I reveal my line of work and it happens to be rare enough that you can put it together with a few other tidbits and figure out who I am (within –say- an 80% certainty), then I would hope you would ask my permission before outing me – and if you outed me without my permission, I would expect the host to censor it immediately. 69. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 10:06:41 PM
Jay:
NO. NO "REPEATED." If I get outed ONCE, deliberately and maliciously, WHY THE HELL SHOULD THE OFFENDER GET A SECOND CHANCE TO OUT SOMEBODY ELSE?
I feel very strongly about this (note the all caps). I redirect you to my post about warnings: There is no need for a warning. You are already warned. 70. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 10:10:17 PM
Jay:
I defined "public" in an earlier version of the rules. You squawked that it was too complex. Here's the definition again, if you want it:
For information to be "public" information, it must be revealed EXPLICITLY, PUBLICLY, and PERSONALLY by the Motie himself.
What does that mean?
Explicity: Motie must offer the information explicitly. Just because you can derive, say, Pelle Nillson's medical history by searching a database for it, that doesn't mean he's "explicitly" offered the information. "Derived" information is not explicitly provided by the motie.
PUBLICLY: The Motie must reveal it publicly, on line. Not in a phone call. Not in an e-mail. SImple
PERSONALLY: The Motie must reveal it himself. If someone outs the Motie, that information should not be considered "public," because the Motie himself did not reveal it. 71. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:10:54 PM Everyone agrees with that formulation Adam. And I really thought we'd be fine depending on good will and good faith, which that formulation depends on.
the problem comes up when personal animosity leads to people testing the boundaries of the rules and accusing each other of violating the rules. The only answer for that, as Ace has said, is to find a respected enforcer who will simply lay down the law without appeal. Once that's done a couple of times, the boundaries will be clearer. I object to lengthy, specific rules because they create arguments about unstated principles. 72. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 10:11:14 PM All:
Many people have talked about how terrible this discussion has been - and there have been needless excesses - but I'm still very happy with the way it's turning out. We seem to have a slightly looser content-based censoring standard than the old place, we're keeping the idea of respecting each other's privacy (as individually desired), and we're finding novel ways to deal with flame-outs.
I'm a fairly happy camper, at this point. 73. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:12:35 PM Sorry, Ace, I meant repeated to mean, "repeated, but not malicious."
on 70, isn't that exactly what profiles would accomplish--the summary of material that the motie considers public? 74. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 10:16:16 PM Jay,
the problem comes up when personal animosity leads to people testing the boundaries of the rules and accusing each other of violating the rules. The only answer for that, as Ace has said, is to find a respected enforcer who will simply lay down the law without appeal. Once that's done a couple of times, the boundaries will be clearer. I object to lengthy, specific rules because they create arguments about unstated principles.
I don't think these are necessarily mutually exclusive. A clear rule with appropriate hedge words ("blatant" outings, for example) and a respected (final) enforcer will work just fine. As I've said, I would rather see rule-testers aggressively dealt with, because they are intentionally trying to see how much they can reveal - and I see no good reason why we want people to even be trying to reveal stuff. 75. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 10:16:18 PM
Niner's personal history is all news to me.
It's not news to a hundred people here. And Niner is just about my best "virtual" buddy, so come on. Give me a break.
I think something should be sort of implicit: When you divulge personal information, the DIVULGER does so at his own risk. The violated party should not bear the burden of risk. If there is a risk of uncertainty to be borne here, then for god's sake, let's place that uncertainty on posters who reveal information about other posters, NOT the aggrieved party.
And I stand by that rule.
If Niner complains that I've outed him as a straight, then I KNEW the risk I was taking, and *I* should bear the consequences. And if there's a penalty to be paid, I'll pay it.
The rule should be: When in doubt, don't out. If you're unsure, keep your fucking mouth shut. Ask a question. If you go up to the line and then cross it, and somebody calls you on it, you should pay the price, because common sense dictates you shouldn't have been near that line at all. 76. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 10:18:15 PM
Adam:
EXACTLY!!! The burden of risk, the burden of uncertainty, should be on the "outer" of private info, not on the VICTIM!!
If you want to push the envelope, don't whine and bitch if you break the envelope and get penalized for it. You knew you were taking a chance. If you were showing other people the respect they deserved, you wouldn't have been pushing the envelope in the first fucking place. 77. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 10:18:51 PM Jay,
I sorta like the profile idea but for a different reason. It would be a good way for newbies to get up to speed with the relevant info about who's who. But I wouldn't expect every Motie to update their profile more than once a year even if they reveal new stuff online. BTW, "online" to me means in the Mote, not any any other forum - is that our common understanding? 78. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:18:52 PM "Deliberate and malicious revelations of sensitive information are grounds for banning. If one of those elements is not established, it may result in a penalty less than banning."
I still like this language of Ace's. It requires a nanny to enforce it, but this is what we mean, isn't it?
79. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:22:09 PM 77
No, we're not in agreement on whether we're talking only about the mote. I agree that "I didn't mean to" should be considered a lame defense.
Ace--
You're making my points. You can, if you want, say rude things about Niner's sexual history because he's a virtual buddy of yours. If someone who was not his virtual buddy said similar things, you'd be at his or her throat, pointing to the rules and screaming. Context matters. That's why specific rules are chimerical. 80. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 10:22:54 PM
Here are the two possible regimes:
Put the burden of uncertainty on the outer of private information: The "outer," who can CONTROL what he's saying, after all, has an incentive to use common sense and err on the side of decency and caution
Put the burden of risk on the victim: The victim obviously cannot control what his outer will say. Furthermore, the "outer" is sort of incentivized to push the envelope, because he can always claim "Geeze I didn't know" and get off, meanwhile delivering the malicious blow he wanted. 81. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 10:23:18 PM Yep. That language is fine by me in #78. And I would expect that the "deliberate" without malicious penalty would be perhaps a day or two's banning, just so the poster learns to pay attention. 82. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:23:41 PM And I still say the profile solves the public vs private problem. I won't always be able to remember whether I learned something here or not.
83. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 10:27:33 PM
Jay:
And I don't think you understand: I know with 100% certainty that Niner 1) has outed his sexual history;
2) does not mind if I make jokes about how lame he is; and
3) there is no three. One and Two pretty much cover it.
If I step over the line, I AM PERFECTLY WILLING TO PAY THE PRICE. I assumed the risk. The assumption of risk should be placed on the party who can CONTROL the risk.
Niner cannot control that risk. I CAN. Therefore, I should assume it. And I am more than willing to assume it.
And you're being silly. "Jokes" and insults do not reveal factual information. If I call you a "big fatty four by four stupid stupid moron jerkweed dorkwad," what "Fact" have I revealed?
What are you objecting to? That I revealed you were a "dorkwad"?
If I reveal Niner's name is "Joe Schlobotnik" (it isn't), how the fuck can that be a "joke"? There is no overlap.
Come on. This nonsense only slows down the debate. Let's keep to the real issues, please. 84. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:28:17 PM Lemme just add one more problem. How are you gonna ban people, anyway? In the "no handles" discussion during the early beta period, Ace pointed out that it's easy to create a fake identity in order to avoid revealing your real name. In our case, don't contribute any money, or, if you do, send cash. The only ID for people we have is email address. It's easy to get a new one.
I guess that cuts both ways. You can ban a persona. the more you invest in your persona, the bigger the price you pay. But I don't see how you can really ban someone. 85. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 10:28:39 PM I would prefer that "revealed" info is by definition "revealed in the Mote" - but it's not a major sticking point.
My problem is that I don't see this as a country-club as some people do - some people want to chat about family, friends, their job, etc. and thus are quite comfortable revealing a whole lot of stuff - whereas some of us just want to discuss ideas and keep the personal stuff, well, at least anonomous. Where I'm biased towards secrecy, some are biased towards getting personal and don't understand the big deal.
Since we've obviously decided that the Mote is to respect privacy, I would rather let the chatters go elsewhere for that stuff and not allow their outside chat revelations back in here to cloud the issue. 86. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:32:03 PM 83
That's fine if you add the proviso that bans have to be requested by the victim, not bystanders. And that the nanny can't act unilaterally to impose a ban, only upon request from the victim. But the victims request still requires the nanny's judgement.
I rather like the idea that bystanders who chime in with demands for bans put themselves at risk of sanction. So let's say this: we create a nanny account, accessible to three to six people. Email to the nanny account is the only way to request a ban. Bans must come from victims. Demands for bans on line will be deleted, regardless of the source. 87. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 10:32:28 PM
Adam:
Why restrict it to the mote? What does that accomplish?
Why not bar someone from revealing CalGal's name at Table Talk, too? We can't ERASE the post on Table Talk, but why shouldn't we ban the person who posted it there?
You're being a little naive, I think. By your rule, Seguine could just go over to Table Talk and out CalGal's name in Fraygrant's Corner.
Huh? What the fuck kind of policy is that? "You can't reveal sensitive personal information, but if you want to go reveal it in Fraygrant's Corner in Table Talk, where most Moties check in now and again, have yourself a PARTY!!!!"
Why?
Why would you make such a ludicrous, micheivous exception?
|
