|
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.
698. CalGal - 2/21/2000 12:23:31 AM But really, Seguine, why make this about me? Clearly, since I'm doing this all by myself--using Alistair's apathy and Wabbit's "good" privacy reasons as cover--there must be plenty of people who resent my imposition of personal values on this forum. Go start an insurgency. Demand an RoE rewrite. Expose the evil purpose of the wicked CalGal and return the Mote to the control of the dominion of righteousness and goodness.
Otherwise, quit blaming me. Like it or not, I don't run this forum. You can try to single me out but the fact is that I could not stop an RoE change by any means other than arguing against it as a Mote member, just like any other.
If Wabbit agreed that the RoE was to be changed because she felt the consensus was in support, then they'd be changed. Probably by me, it's true, but that's because we don't have a lot of people standing in line to write things up.
So if you want a policy change, get the masses moving. Otherwise, accept the fact that I'm not the one standing in your way.
699. Seguine - 2/21/2000 12:31:33 AM Re Cazart, Jay has it right in Message # 692. It's a ploy. The subject matter is too thin to warrant considering the thread seriously. If it weren't, I'd advocate letting Cazart host (perhaps under close scrutiny), but his idea is dim and the moderator ought to feel comfortable excluding dim thread topics that no one is seriously interested in. The basis of her exclusionary rule should be that creating such a thread would be a waste of her precious time. 700. Seguine - 2/21/2000 12:40:36 AM CalGal, you have spent the last two posts misrepresenting me in quotes. I didn't say, nor did I intend, the good vs. evil nonsense you attributed to me.
Perhaps there should be a rule about repeated and deliberate misrepresentations of others' remarks.
Of course, that would take out half the Mote... 701. Seguine - 2/21/2000 12:42:37 AM "If Wabbit agreed that the RoE was to be changed because she felt the consensus was in support, then they'd be changed. Probably by me, it's true, but that's because we don't have a lot of people standing in line to write things up."
Really?
Who has offered? Who has been asked?
702. CalGal - 2/21/2000 12:48:38 AM The "good vs. evil" was sarcasm, and I note that you completely ignore the substance of the post, so I'll restate without the "good and evil" offense.
You have represented the RoE as my design, and speculated that I wrote them to maintain control of this forum. You have speculated that I am able to achieve this because Wabbit supports my policies (but for different reasons, whatever that means) and that Alistair doesn't care, but he needs Wabbit.
My response is that I have no more control over this forum than you do. If you want the RoE changed, form a consensus that supports change and get Wabbit to agree. That's all you have to do. I have nothing to do with it.
Instead, I suspect that some of you would rather bitch about me than try to get things changed. If you failed at effecting change, you'd have to accept the fact that it's not really me in your way.
Much easier to skip all that and just complain about me. And it must be me, of course. Wabbit and Alistair--to say nothing of JJ and Jay--are so easily manipulated. 703. CalGal - 2/21/2000 12:52:54 AM Who has offered? Who has been asked?
Well, in this case, you'd have to start with, "Have we agreed a change is necessary?"
After that, if my rewrite was unpopular, I'd happily work until it was popular--or I'd turn it over to someone else if that was necessary.
One other thing, Seguine. You continually ignore one key point--the model we are using is the one that was in effect at the Fray. I didn't make it up out of wholecloth. You never bitched about this model at the Fray, although I'm willing to believe it bothered you. But when you represent the RoE as my own personal agenda, rather than a modified writeup of the Slate RoR, you make me wonder what the hell your point is. Why not acknowledge that much, at least? 704. dusty - 2/21/2000 1:18:04 AM CalGal
Ha, ha. You think that the Niner flap was a problem, but a host "going" bad wan't? Please.
That's not what I said. Saying something is a different issue is not the same as saying it isn't a problem. Try reading again. 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.
Well, you're the one who proposed it was time to have a debate over thread host selection. You say it's not all that critical, I questioned the need. Sounds like we agree. 705. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/21/2000 1:27:44 AM I haven't read through this thread in a while, and had a lot of back posts to wade through, er, consider carefully.
One thing A5 said in Message # 638 requires a response:
I guess part of my thinking is this: if everyone's real name is attached to what they say within the Mote, some people might think a little more about what they say, and we'd have a lot less stuff going on that would ever inspire someone to retaliate against a poster personally. Think about it.
If you... are aware that people will be able to connect your words to your IRL identity, are you going to make a practice of wandering around pissing in everyone's Wheaties?
Two points:
1) The reasons for wanting privacy can be very different from any you consider. I, for one, live in a country where the things I say could quite easily be used against me, and I'm not about to post things under my real name to give ammunition to those who might wish to do this. If you recall, I was in fact threatened with just this situation at the old place, which scared the shit out of me.
2) It isn't only the people who go around "pissing in everyone's Wheaties" who are at risk. I think you'll agree that I have been one of the more civil participants in this and the previous forum. But that didn't stop me from having to deal with a serious threat. Sure, it's easy to say the threat was meaningless. But I was the one facing the possibility of getting in trouble with the authorities in a nation I would never want to leave.
I am confident that the vast majority of participants here value the ability to use an anonymous ID if they choose. Anyone who wants to use their real name has the ability to do so, also. This situation allows everyone to do what they're comfortable with, and that's all that really matters. 706. CalGal - 2/21/2000 1:56:49 AM Dusty,
Well, you're the one who proposed it was time to have a debate over thread host selection.
I was trying to separate the two issues: whether or not we have a TT thread, the issue of thread host "standards" has not reached consensus. There are those who believe that anyone should be allowed to host, and those who believe that past behavior towards the forum is relevant. And I'm sure there are those who think the popularity of the host should matter.
I just didn't want that distinction to be lost. It's not so much that I think it's critical--although I'm not sure what you think is more critical--as it is I'd just as soon not revisit this again without a policy. 707. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/21/2000 2:05:20 AM I think Seguine's Message # 699 covers the situation nicely (and by happy coincidence, says basically what I said in the Suggestions thread).
If we need a policy, here it is:
-----
Everyone is eligible to be suggest a thread or volunteer to be a thread host. If there is interest in a thread, the topic is a reasonable one, and there is a host, the moderator will start the thread. The Moderator has the final approval on thread topics and thread hosts.
-----
I really don't think we need to define it further than that. You open up a can of woms when you try to define all possible situations, and write a policy to reflect the latest issue. Leave it up to the moderator. That's why she gets the big bucks. 708. JayAckroyd - 2/21/2000 2:05:22 AM Actually, Seguine, Irv feels quite strongly about privacy issues as well, and I think he, as much as anyone, is responsible for the resemblance to the Fray rules.
I happen to disagree; I'd prefer a transparent forum, but that is not a majority view--or even a plurality view. What is really making this work is wabbit, not the policies. Different policies would still only work if they were enforced with the same grace as wabbit.
At the time, I noted that the fearful ones will always win this argument, because the transparency decision removes the anonymity option, while the anonymity decision preserves the transparency option.
That's what happened then, and I'm sure Spence could show us a model for why that was the optimal choice. Ace and CG made a lot of noise, but that wasn't what carried the day. 709. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/21/2000 2:07:07 AM Well, that works except for the extranneous "be." 710. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/21/2000 2:07:50 AM (I meant my 707) 711. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/21/2000 2:12:34 AM Jay:
What carried the day is that we would lose a lot of people were we to adopt a tranparency policy, or eliminate the restrictions on posting personal info.
I think Seguine made some very good points above, worthy of further discussion, and she certainly isn't advocating undoing the restrictions on personal info. Her suggestions go further, into the sensitive area of personal abuse. I like the way she defines things, and I would support more restrictions on abuse, as it is definitely harmful to the forum, and adds nothing to the dialogue.
But every time I brought this up at the old place, I got shouted down, and I expect that to happen again. 712. dusty - 2/21/2000 2:13:11 AM PelleNilsson
We want the Mote to be a good place.
Agreed
Cazart has no such loyalty.
Agreed.
I'm quite sure he's out to do harm.
The odds are in your favor.
To give him a thread may be the worst decision in the short history of the Mote.
What harm will follow? It's bad enough that Cazart lies about this place in other forums. Cazart doesn't provide links to the lies, because there is no supporting evidence. (At least, none that survives a few seconds inspection.)
Turning down Cazart's request will create a precedent—the first time someone has volunteered to host a new thread, and we've turned it down. For the first time, Cazart will be able to make a claim about this place and link it into relevant factual evidence.
If this sounds like caving to pressure, it is the opposite. I think the thread will fail miserably. It will stand as proof that Cazart is all bluster and no content. And, if by some miracle, it doesn't fail miserably, then we've all gained.
Cazart sounds just like the little kid on the playground who has't been invited to play in the game, and decides to interrupt the game. Sometimes those kids will magically transform when invited in, other times they will continue to be disruptive. In the former case, good results ensue. In the latter, kick the kid out for screwing up. And if the disruption continues, one can legitimately say that the kid has had a chance. 713. CalGal - 2/21/2000 2:19:35 AM Irv,
Well, I'd always rather a policy. It's the wonk in me. But then, "the Moderator has final approval on thread hosts" sounds like a policy to me--and one I agree with.
Jay,
Ace and CG made a lot of noise, but that wasn't what carried the day.
I completely agree, although I'd like to point out that both sides "made a lot of noise". But I've never thought that my argument for privacy was the reason it was adopted. Rather, I thought it was the fact that most people didn't join in the debate, which indicates a comfort with the status quo. I just happened to be arguing for the status quo in that case.
714. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 2:21:22 AM I'm not looking for pats on the back here or anything but both Harper and I were involved in drafting the RoE. Harper had to leave town before they were finished but I passed on her ideas to CG along with my own and there were numerous e-mails back and forth between us and plenty of visits to the open forum where policy ideas were being hotly debated. Anyone who believes that CalGal acted alone is mistaken.
Forgive me or don't if I get irritated with the paranoid view that CalGal has dominated this forum. Anyone and everyone who volunteered to help in creating theMote was allowed to do so. People participated according to their time and abilities. Had we sat around and waited for those people who spend so much time whining about CalGal to get it together and do something we'd all be posting in TableTalk right now. 715. CalGal - 2/21/2000 2:30:21 AM I didn't mention you because I wasn't sure you wanted to be drafted in defense (Harper had mentioned it online). Thanks for chiming in, though. 716. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 2:32:29 AM I didn't think you were slighting me. Anyone who paid attention at the time was aware of the fact that both Harper and I were involved. Funny how the facts screw up a perfectly good conspiracy theory.
|
 |
Go To Mote #
|
|
