|
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. 686. Seguine - 2/20/2000 6:22:54 AM Correction: I hadn't looked at the RoE lately and failed to see the revised version!
Rules 1-4 should all be compressed into one:
Do not make threats or use personal information to bait, insult, abuse, or put at risk other forum participants.
There should, I think, be few or no caveats; that is, it shouldn't matter whether the personal information had ever been disclosed "legitimately". And it should not matter whether the info is exploited (per the rule) in the Mote or elsewhere. 687. dusty - 2/20/2000 1:06:07 PM I'm not sure I know why we need to discuss thread host criteria. I think there are more pressing issues.
We did have a prior minor controversy over a thread host (Niner), but it was resolved easily. Other than that, I'm hard pressed to think of a situation other than the present one, where we've had any controversy over the selection of a host. (Yes, we did have a host "go bad", but that's a different issue).
As the lawyers say, "Hard cases make bad law". It would be better to debate the issue (if it needs debating) when we don't have a particular situation staring us in the face. Of course, like the guy who won't fix his leaking roof during the rain because it is raining, and won't fix it when the sun shines because it isn't leaking, if we wait till this incident blows over, we may never revisit the issue. (Which might illustrate that we don't need a general rule, we need a solution to a specific problem.)
Having said that, I think we are making far too much of the situation. A thread is not a scarce good. Giving a thread to Cazart doesn't mean someone else has to give it up. We aren't committing any special resources if the thread is assigned. In fact, I suggest that we are wasting more precious resources debating why Cazart shouldn't get a thread. Had we done it a few days ago, we'd probably know by now whether Cazart would do a decent job, or continue to screw up. And we would have wasted less time. 688. CalGal - 2/20/2000 2:14:36 PM 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.
The reason there is a distinction is because the distinction existed at the Fray. While I support and agree with the distinction, it was not one that I instituted or demanded. It was a model that worked well there, and when we created this forum it was first tacitly and then explicitly agreed to use this model. Did everyone agree? No. A consensus was reached. Who determined that a consensus had been reached? You seem to think it was me. You might want to think again.
As far as "verbally assaulting" people with information that they've already made available on this forum, I'm not sure where Wabbit would make the call. Frankly, I think this would be unenforceable--which is what I believe was said by others (including me) the last time we had the debate.
I must say I wish I had all the power that some of you think I have. It'd be a great world. 689. CalGal - 2/20/2000 2:18:44 PM Ha, ha. You think that the Niner flap was a problem, but a host "going" bad wasn't? Please.
I'm not sure what you think is a more pressing issue, but I'm not claiming that this one is all that critical.
I've basically said my piece on it anyway. BTW, when I said "it's done", I was referring to the conversation with you. I really don't care how long the discussion itself goes on. 690. PelleNilsson - 2/20/2000 3:37:58 PM From time to time we have heated discussions on some aspect of policy. But underneath there is a basic loyalty to the forum. We want the Mote to be a good place. Cazart has no such loyalty. I'm quite sure he's out to do harm. To give him a thread may be the worst decision in the short history of the Mote. 691. JudithAtHome - 2/20/2000 10:38:51 PM I agree with Pelle...if someone came to my place of business and repeatedly trashed it and went next door and spoke negatively to all and sundry about me and my business, then came to me and asked for a job in my store, I would have no problems in saying "No, I don't think so!"
Dusty, your attitude is very admirable (give him a chance, etc.) but unfortunately, it is wasted on someone who is out to do harm to this place. Past actions speak louder than words. 692. JayAckroyd - 2/20/2000 10:58:27 PM I don't think this is a difficult case at all. The thread proposed is just plain silly. A thread about the discussion area at a single internet site, where the discussion area is so trivial that in a NYTimes magazine article about the site, that content is never mentioned? The obvious place to discuss such a discussion area is on the site itself. Think about it. Television and Movies; Physics, Economics, History; Arts and Music; and the Table Talk Forum at salon.com.?!?
Moreover, it is really just a ploy. If we put up the thread, we're ninnies. If we don't, we're exclusionary. It would have been a better ploy if it had been a good suggestion. 693. Seguine - 2/21/2000 12:00:36 AM "The reason there is a distinction is because the distinction existed at the Fray."
This is not the Fray. That is, it is not a commercial site run by third parties for their own purposes but a volunteer site run by participants for their own purposes. The Mote's purposes and the concerns of its participants have evolved away from those of the Fray--and they had done, as of the Mote's inception. There was never any particular reason to hew to Fray policy in particular.
"While I support and agree with the distinction, it was not one that I instituted or demanded. It was a model that worked well there, and when we created this forum it was first tacitly and then explicitly agreed to use this model."
On the contrary, you advocated quite vocally for continuing Fray policy, in almost the same words you're using now. Some people agreed with you. Others didn't. The position you advocated was the one adopted. Naturally, I'm not sure how "it was first tacitly and then explicitly agreed [that all-purpose passive voice at work!] to use this model". You'll have to forgive my assumption that the policy's most vocal proponent had something to do with its adoption, but given that decision making here is not exactly transparent, I don't see why I shouldn't conclude your opinion carries at least some of the weight you wish it did.
694. Seguine - 2/21/2000 12:01:04 AM "Did everyone agree? No. A consensus was reached. Who determined that a consensus had been reached? You seem to think it was me. You might want to think again."
I could think all day about it and come to only provisional conclusions. But my uneducated bet is that Wabbit shares your concerns about privacy (for very different reasons) and Alistair, who probably doesn't care one way or the other, needs Wabbit to consent to moderate this place, so you got to write (at least) the first version of the rules because they were close enough to what Wabbit agreed with and because you were eager to take on the task, in order to have some control of nature of this forum. Which you prefer allow for certain kinds of nastiness and not others. All of this does not suggest that "the Mote" made decisions about what the RoE should contain.
"As far as "verbally assaulting" people with information that they've already made available on this forum, I'm not sure where Wabbit would make the call. Frankly, I think this would be unenforceable..."
It's not unenforceable at all, and in fact Wabbit has made the call adroitly in several cases already. In fact, not only is the rule eminently enforceable, but violations of it tend to be obviously out of bounds by most anyone's lights. 695. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 12:16:10 AM Seguine more or less has the right of the ROE from what I remember. I implicitly trust Wabbit to maintain discipline and choose threads and thread hosts, and she has done a stellar job thus far. 696. Seguine - 2/21/2000 12:18:48 AM In any case, the Rules of Engagement should not be about especially accommodating CalGal, or anyone in particular, and so your input or the lack of it is actually beside the point. The point is establishing limits on behavior that make the forum conducive to intelligent discussion and creative antics without making the place a beach head from which cabals and idiots can operate at everyone else's expense. Abuse and harassment using personal info should be off-limits for the same reason disclosure of IDs should be off-limits: it violates privacy, which many people apparently consider very important.
As for more general "abuse", one can only hope that moderators will exercise sound judgment, since that is always the part of the RoE which is subject to the greatest interpretive lattitude. 697. CalGal - 2/21/2000 12:22:21 AM It's not unenforceable at all, and in fact Wabbit has made the call adroitly in several cases already.
As has been mentioned several times before, these are covered as "abuse", not "privacy". That's fine, and I support it. The nice thing about "abuse" is that it is deliberately open ended.
But if I understand you, you are seeking to make these sort of violations a matter of the privacy rule, not a matter of abuse. As such, I don't see how they are enforceable.
But my uneducated bet is that Wabbit shares your concerns about privacy (for very different reasons) and Alistair, who probably doesn't care one way or the other, needs Wabbit to consent to moderate this place, so you got to write (at least) the first version of the rules because they were close enough to what Wabbit agreed with and because you were eager to take on the task, in order to have some control of nature of this forum.
Oh, I see. Wabbit wants privacy for "good" reasons, I want privacy for "bad" reasons, and I jumped to take on the job because it suits my overall fell purpose to control the forum.
A few problems--Harper volunteered to do the RoE, she couldn't get it done before she went to Ireland, and I wrote it up when we had the problems with privacy violations in the first few weeks (you might remember them?) and it became clear we needed to articulate policy. I specifically wrote them up to mirror what we had at the Fray, since this had been something that the majority of members were comfortable with and had been used to for some number of years. As I've said, I also support them. But I didn't change them.
|
