|
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? 88. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:32:58 PM 85
Adam, the funny thing is that the people who like to talk about personal stuff tend to be anonymous. 89. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:35:14 PM Ace,
You can't control what you can't control. I just posted my phone number. You could call me and tell me Niner's real name (I've forgotten it). How can the forum do anything about that? How can it find out? There are about three billion newsgroups. Are we gonna monitor those?
90. Angel-Five - 9/17/1999 10:36:28 PM
The history of both the Fray and Tabletalk demonstrates that you cannot effectively ban anyone. The penalty Ace mentions -- having to be a new persona -- really isn't a penalty to the people who get banned, anyway. 91. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 10:39:47 PM
That's fine if you add the proviso that bans have to be requested by the victim, not bystanders.
Ummmmmm... if we're talking about the most sensitive information possible-- de facto bannable revelations like name, address, family members-- why?
Let me say something: I think CalGal is much more upset than she's letting on. I think she fears everyone will bitch and snipe at her if she requests which by right she should (and you know what I'm talking about).
So I think CalGal has been cowed by an unfriendly crowd into meekly taking a deliberate, malicious violation. Taking one for the team.
For de facto bannable suspensions, I'm not sure why you'd need the party's request. Unless the party says, "Oh, yeah, I TOLD her she could reveal my name and address," I don't know why you'd need the party's request.
However, I am flexible on the point, since the victim can plead for mercy for her violator, I guess. But I see it as a source of mischief, where people can shun somebody just for asking for justice, and cow them into silence. 92. Angel-Five - 9/17/1999 10:39:56 PM The problem with monitoring off-site traffic is that no one knows who's who.I could go into TT right now, get a fake ID, and out sixty Motiers. Who would know it was me? Banning that sort of behavior isn't going to prevent any actions, it's just going to give people who are minded to flaunt the rules a rule that it's really easy to flaunt. 93. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 10:41:14 PM Banning is more symbolic and annoying than it its an actual death-penalty. This is a virtual world, remember? Even bannings are virtual. People can always get back in if they really want to.
If someone outs someone in TT, we can hardly stop them. If it was announced in the Mote, linked from the Mote, or otherwise referenced with the intention of having Moties go look at an outing, then that would be as good as doing it in the Mote as far as I'm concerned. 94. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 10:41:18 PM
Jay:
A violation is only a violation if someone FINDS OUT about it. Jeeezus Christmas.
If I'm a thief and I get away with it, what should my punishment be? NOTHING-- Because I got away with it.
Obviously, you can't punish successful criminals. You can punish the ones you catch, though. 95. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 10:44:32 PM All we can do is set a tone with our rules. We can never completely stop people from committing 'crimes.' What we can do is make this a place where those people are actively discourged and we clean up their mess as fast as possible. Asking for more is asking for the impossible. 96. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 10:45:05 PM 93
Adam:
Why? Why? If you post CalGal's name on Table Talk, and WE CATCH you, why not take action?
If you post on some board that nobody ever sees, fine, congratulations, YOU GOT AWAY WITH IT. But who fucking cares? If no one finds out about, there's no harm, except that some person no one's ever heard of now knows there's a person named Darlene Chickentits who posts as CalGal.
This is silly. Sure, people can do whatever they want if no one ever finds out about it. That's the nature of crime-- you only get punished if you're caught. 97. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:45:12 PM 91
If it's done through email and not public posting, then nobody will know, will they? And it seems to me that the victim's request rule fits in with your paradigm of only the victim knows whether they've been infringed upon.
Still don't know what good all this does if we can't ban people anyway.
|
