|
744. PsychProf - 2/21/2000 5:32:23 AM Irv's Message # 707 is fine with me...thanks to Cazart, we are having some reinvigorating discussions. 745. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 5:36:59 AM Angel,
Valid observations. But we have more options available IRL for dealing with those who abuse our privacy and trust not to mention the fact that people are less prone to those kinds of abuses when face to face. IRL I tend to avoid those I dislike or distrust but it doesn't require me to avoid those I do like. In an online forum we cannot pick and choose who gets to participate according to everyone's personal whims therefore we may associate with those we do not repsect or who do not respect us in order to associate with those we do. Because of this I don't find it unreasonable to have stricter standards of privacy than might be enforceable in the world.
746. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 5:41:53 AM But we have more options available
IRL for dealing with those who abuse our privacy and
trust not to mention the fact that people are less prone
to those kinds of abuses when face to face. What other options? I don't think I can agree to this, simply because I've seen a lot more face to face 'abuse' than here in our cozy little OL nest. And you don't have to associate IRL with someone for them to take an active dislike to you -- and it is very easy to learn someone's personal information IRL whether or not you tell it to them. 747. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 5:42:13 AM Sorry, Angel, 745 is in response to 738 & 740.
Re:742
Seguine seems to be under the impression that if CalGal didn't singlehandedly invent the RoE without approval or input from anyone else in the forum then Harper and I were her henchmen in drafting a policy that everyone here would have to adhere to but to which they were not allowed to contribute.
748. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 5:44:49 AM I mean, what about work? You go to work where there are people you don't like, right? You go to the store where there are people you don't respect, right? You do any number of similar things and put up with people you'd rather not, because overall you are rewarded for doing so. It is the same here. 749. JudithAtHome - 2/21/2000 5:45:10 AM I seem to recall y'all almost begging people for input and help with drafting the ROE... 750. cazart - 2/21/2000 5:47:46 AM Face it, folks, the RoE are so broad and general, they are virtually meaningless. And that's not a criticism; it's merely an observation. Nor is their vagueness a bad thing--it would be impossible to clearly spell out a comprehensive set of rules or policies.
The main problem is that the RoE are enforced unevenly and inconsistently. Furthermore, it is clear that Mote powers-that-be don't understand fundamental concepts of privacy and security or at least pretend not to.
CalGal's "lousy mother" example is just silly. If you bring up your parental status (usually in some effort to demonstrate that you know everything there is to know about parenting), you really shouldn't be surprised if it is used against you. It has nothing to do with privacy and/or security.
In one of my periodic bannings from theMote, my offense was to link to a picture of another Motehead. I was banned despite the fact that this picture had been previously linked to, in this forum, and revealed no RL info whatsoever. When I complained about posts being forged in my name ( a Motehead was posting under my name ), the primary reasoin given condoning this behavior was that even though the posts were forged, my pseudonym 'protected' me.
Different rules. Different folks. 751. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 5:50:09 AM ChristinO I didn't pick that up from her reading. What I did pick up was the sense that the drafters of the ROE represented their own interests and not necessarily everyone else's. I also remember from the time that there was a bit of appeasement going on WRT the ROE. The fact that it's now up for discussion would indicate that they aren't rules (or at the least aren't worded in a manner) which everyone agrees with, especially in the way the emphasis seems to run on them. 752. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 5:50:27 AM Angel,
Yes it is easy to learn people's personal information IRL. I'm not disputing that. If we could prevent it I'm sure we would.
In real life I can place a restraining order on someone who harasses me. I can sue for harrassment or libel or slander or invasion of privacy. I can also get my boyfriend to go to their house and beat the everlivin' shit out of 'em.
Online without some punishment for abuse of privacy my only option is to quit the forum. 753. Seguine - 2/21/2000 5:56:55 AM "I'm not sure. I'm assuming it's because you didn't participate in the open discussion regarding the RoE that took place over the course of several days."
An "open discussion" which took place in a register-only subthread. (I'm touched you think I should have participated, but it occurred during the time I absented myself from discussions in the Mote in order to allow bad feelings to die down in the wake of my posting a cipher of CalGal's rl name.)
Look over that "open" discussion and ask yourself, at what point were the RoE composed in essentially finished form? How many motiers had offered their views about the rules before they were complete, in the form in which they ultimately were published? As of Adrianne's and Spudboy's less than sanguine remarks, for instance, it appears to me as though the rules as originally formulated by the first 4 or 5 participants were cast in stone. As of post 545, a grand total of 23 people had remarked at all, and that includes Wabbit, not to mention spurious posts by people like Spiderman and Nostradamus. How many users are registered in the Mote?
754. PelleNilsson - 2/21/2000 5:57:07 AM I confirm what ChristinO has said. I was interested in helping to draft the RoE but something came up. It was very clear at the time that anybody who thought they could contribute was welcome to do so. The exact wording was discussed in open forum.
It is true that CalGal put the words together, but to suggest that the RoE is a "CalGal product" is ridiculous and childish beyond words.
Now, I suggest that anybody who is not happy with the RoE as they stand now should come up with a comprehensive new version.
755. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 5:57:35 AM My trust in this forum is pretty much my trust in Wabbit, Irv, Jay and Al (I think I shall call him 'Al' from now on) and now Indiana. I trust the first four implicitly and have just gotten to know the last, so the trust will take a while there. I trust in their ability to fairly and effectively govern far more than I place trust in the RoE. In my experience they have not played favorites and I'm simply content to let them govern with the RoE as vague guidelines, not hard-and-fast-rules. If the RoE are to be the Constitution of the Mote, then they need to be much more exactly written and broken down into concrete terms -- that's not a slam at your writing, ChristinO, just a personal observation. What isn't good, in my eyes, is a bloody lot of argument over a handful of very vague rules where people try to finesse the rules to their best advantage and there's a billion interpretations floating around. That seems to be what we have now. 756. Seguine - 2/21/2000 5:57:38 AM Some opinions appeared to have been considered. Others evidently were not, for whatever reasons. But throughout the exchange, CalGal did indeed "shout down" (to use Irv's verbiage) views she disagreed with, and used language very clearly intended to convey to anyone who wasn't in the know that she was involved in decision making. So please don't cry "paranoia" now, and please don't invite me to cite the avalanche of examples I could quote to show that CalGal intended to convey about herself more authority than she possessed.
Incidentally, why should it ever have been a secret that you and Harper were involved in drafting the RoE? Why didn't the entire membership of the Mote receive email inviting everyone to weigh in on the topic?
The answer, of course, is that there was an "emergency", precipitated by me, which required that the RoE be clarified. But I think an urgency existed beforehand, and others do too, whether or not you care to acknowledge it. And I think there's still dissatisfaction out there, otherwise this topic would not keep bringing itself up. 757. Seguine - 2/21/2000 6:00:26 AM Christin: "The reason we got to do it was because NO ONE ELSE VOLUNTEERED. Certainly not you."
That's interesting. How would you know? 758. CalGal - 2/21/2000 6:04:28 AM Caz,
you really shouldn't be surprised if it is used against you. It has nothing to do with privacy and/or security.
That's actually my position, as well. It is Seguine's position that such information should not be used to "harass or abuse", not mine.
Angel,
What I did pick up was the sense that the drafters of the ROE represented their own interests and not necessarily everyone else's.
I linked to an earlier post in this thread where it was discussed. Everyone was given a chance to respond.
Irv has pointed out the fact that most people want anonymity and privacy. You might want to consider that the drafters, in fact, represented the majority interest. That is certainly my understanding.
The fact that it's now up for discussion would indicate that they aren't rules (or at the least aren't worded in a manner) which everyone agrees with, especially in the way the emphasis seems to run on them.
No, it's up for discussion because you have brought it up. You want less privacy, as does Jay. Seguine wants more privacy. The other people involved have supported the current RoE. The fact that it's up for discussion means that you want to discuss it. Which is fine, but let's not pretend there is some sort of massive movement for change.
It was my understanding that the RoE represented the desires of the majority of forum members. If that is not true, I think we should revise it. I have seen no indication that there is a big movement for change. As I've said a few times to both you and Seguine, please go out into the other threads, encourage people to read this discussion, and see if others desire change--whether to require more openness or require more privacy. 759. Seguine - 2/21/2000 6:06:10 AM "Seguine seems to be under the impression that if CalGal didn't singlehandedly invent the RoE without approval or input from anyone else in the forum then Harper and I were her henchmen in drafting a policy that everyone here would have to adhere to but to which they were not allowed to contribute."
This is a distortion, and A-5 has read my remarks correctly. (Pellenilson, take note.)
760. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 6:08:02 AM Angel,
"the drafters of the ROE represented their own interests and not necessarily everyone else's"
And how is that different from CalGal and her cabal (Harper would laugh herself silly over being included in such a group) made the rules they wanted without consulting the rest of us? Please don't anyone mistake that last bit as even an attempt at a direct quote.
Granted your version is less snarky than mine but the claim is ridiculous and it irritated me.
If the RoE aren't working for people then let's discuss it and make better ones. I can't help pointing out that one of the people crying loudest for reform is cazart, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
On the strength of Irving's posts alone I'd be willing to look at the RoE again. I think it's a good idea as we grow and mature (did I actually say mature?) to review our policies, but Seguine's manner is less than productive. Let's address issues germane rather than manufacturing out of wholecloth once again the fantasy that CalGal runs this forum. There are a number of people who might consider that an insult to their efforts not least of all Alistair and Wabbit. 761. Seguine - 2/21/2000 6:09:58 AM CalGal: "It was my understanding that the RoE represented the desires of the majority of forum members. If that is not true, I think we should revise it."
This is sensible. I would add that, if CalGal's initial impression turns out to have been correct, then the rules needn't be revised. 762. cazart - 2/21/2000 6:13:30 AM Angel-Five:
Don't know Irv or Al and I've had less than pleasant experiences with Wabbit and Jay. Except for Jay's threat to release my RL info and some snide remarks, I 've no real reason to question Jay's integrity. Same for Wabbit.
I can, however, attest to Indiana Jones' complete lack of integrity. Many, in TT, who knew him under various handles--primarily 'Stinky'--will also attest to his lack of integrity. He has demostrated, repeatedly, a propensity to release RL information and encouraged and participated in some pretty vile efforts to harrass, stalk, and intimidate people based on this info.
To date, the Mote's biggest mistake, by far, has been to entrust Indiana Jones with RL info. He will abuse this info. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. 763. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 6:15:26 AM I linked to an earlier post in this thread where it was
discussed. Everyone was given a chance to respond. In a register-only subthread where most of the previous action consisted of a horrendously big argument? Where there were doubts raised that were ignored, and where only a very small percentage of the Mote responded at all? Please. No, it's up for discussion because you have brought it up.
You want less privacy, as does Jay. Seguine wants more
privacy. The other people involved have supported the
current RoE. The fact that it's up for discussion means
that you want to discuss it. Which is fine, but let's not
pretend there is some sort of massive movement for
change. I'm tired of your convenient inability to read written English and equally impatient with your penchant for distortion. No one is pretending to represent a massive groundswell for change. And if three people would like a different set of rules in their ideal Mote, then what I said is exactly correct.
|
