|
871. Indiana Jones - 2/22/2000 2:56:21 AM If someone posts something personal, then it's fair game. That's why I don't do it.
100 percent protection for what you keep private.
0 percent protection for what you don't.
Fairly unambigious. 872. Adrianne - 2/22/2000 2:56:43 AM
Ack!
Not that this matters to anyone but me, but I was not annoyed at CG for "revealing" my husband's occupation.
HEY EVERYBODY! MY HUSBAND'S A COP!
(and yes, RustlerPike, it's JUST like it is on tv).
She misunderstood what I was pissed about.
FWIW, I would personally support a rule against the use of personal info not revealed *in this forum* or *on the Mote*, as opposed to a rule against revealing something that hadn't been exposed "online." It doesn't take much work to find and abuse posts from Mote participants on other forums, and I don't think it's very nice to consider, say, a post that RosettaStone made on "Odious Toads Anonymous" as fair game on this, an entirely unrelated forum.
873. Dusty - 2/22/2000 2:58:59 AM Message # 865 109109
For example, if a person who was respected asked for a TT or a Internet Forums thread, they'd probably get it.
I was the first one to ask for a TT thread. (In response to a post by you, ironically.)
I read you loud and clear. 874. Adrianne - 2/22/2000 2:59:00 AM
Oh, and iffen you can't remember where you so the info posted - then err on the side of NOT being a freakin douchebag. 875. CalGal - 2/22/2000 3:08:56 AM FWIW, I would personally support a rule against the use of personal info not revealed *in this forum* or *on the Mote*, as opposed to a rule against revealing something that hadn't been exposed "online."
I agree, with the one grey area being the Fray. I realize that's the area under dispute, and I think it makes sense that any revelations that were only made in the Fray can be deleted and requested to be kept private from now on. I don't think someone should be banned for not doing that--too many of us have an ongoing knowledge of each other that was never interrupted. It's harder to keep straight. But I think these can be handled on a case by case basis, and I have no problem with information that was only revealed on the Fray being considered private. I just think that people who make such comments shouldn't be banned unless they have already been told once that it's private. 876. 109109 - 2/22/2000 3:15:21 AM Dusty
Ha ha ha ha ha. Were you? My bad. You know what I mean. if you clamored, you'd get it.
Ad
Your husband is a cop? I have this parking ticket problem . . .
Seg
On your proposed policy, it seems like a lot of work to discern the abuse angle. That said, if those who make the decisions don't mind, it seems nebulous. I would suggest that a list of simple no-no's - divorced from andy "abuse" standard - apply, such as names, photos, numbers, addresses, places of work, etc . . .
This also strikes me as a fair balance.
But, of course, I think the language is irrelevant as long as the small chummy insiders such as myself keep running the real show.
877. 109109 - 2/22/2000 3:17:06 AM And there is no such person named "andy abuse."
that is "any abuse."
878. Seguine - 2/22/2000 3:25:08 AM "I also think it protects people more than they need to be protected. Why should the forum administrator have to chastise someone else just because they referred to information that is known? What if there was no intent to hurt? What if they think it's relevant, and that it is hypocritical for someone to hide behind this protection?"
Some people hide behind other kinds of protection. "I didn't know the info was PRIVATE" is a common one. So is, "I didn't think it mattered because the info had been revealed already/here/publicly/ten years ago in passing." Then there's "I didn't intend to hurt." If one makes one's remarks knowing that the moderator may decide otherwise, one will, I expect, use greater caution in the first place.
"Cig is arguing for single payer, and someone hunts up Cig's announcement of his illness. We make it a bannable offense to quote someone's own words?'
The debate is not furthered by promulgating such info, signalling to others that one is "in the know" about Cig in order to belittle him. The ad hominem may surely be delivered without repeating personal particulars (see previous example). If quoting remarks containing personal info seems necessary to your argument, quote civilly. If a barrage of "civil" recapitulations of others personal info strikes the moderator as excessive, she may deem them harassment. (Obviously, the object(s) of the barrage should have grounds to complain.)
"But to say that words posted here can't be used in a debate? Where does one draw the line?"
Don't obfuscate. I have not said words posted here "can't be used in a debate". One draws the line at insulting, attacking, harassing, or threatening.
879. CalGal - 2/22/2000 3:28:59 AM I'm not obfuscating. I assumed it was a given we are talking about insulting, etc.
If Cig says he's in favor of single payer and I say, that's all very well for you to want everyone to pick up your ALS bill, is that an insult? Harassment? A threat? Or a rebuttal?
880. Seguine - 2/22/2000 3:32:21 AM "On your proposed policy, it seems like a lot of work to discern the abuse angle."
Less so than the current rules (see item 3 and its non-explanation), which are not even bounded by the personal info criterion. 881. Dantheman - 2/22/2000 3:35:24 AM Seguine,
To take another example which occurred some time ago, in the middle of a discussion with Ace, I told him to go back to abusing plaintiffs. That can be taken as insulting (and was meant to be), and was based on information posted suggesting that he is an insurance defense lawyer. Would it be permitted under your rule? 882. CalGal - 2/22/2000 3:36:34 AM If someone is being abusive of another person, why should it matter whether or not they use personal information (revealed online) to do it? Why is it any worse to call someone a lousy mother than it is to call someone a skank or a whore? Abuse is abuse. If a person reveals information about themselves, they have to expect it might be referenced in ways they'd rather it not. If the information is used in a way that is particularly abusive above and beyond the mention of the information itself, then it's abusive and can be handled as such. Abuse is, by definition, vague. That gives wabbit plenty of wiggle room.
I agree with Indy. If you don't mention it here, I'd like to think we protect it 100%. If you do, then you have to figure it's on you.
If there is enough desire to make this forum a nicer, less abusive place, then I think we can do that without singling out one particular type of insult. 883. CalGal - 2/22/2000 3:38:28 AM Less so than the current rules (see item 3 and its non-explanation), which are not even bounded by the personal info criterion.
I don't understand. It's no work at all, now. Wabbit makes the call--or the thread host does. There is no attempt at all to define abuse. That is deliberate. 884. 109109 - 2/22/2000 3:54:01 AM Seg
Yea, but understand, I think that problems stick out like sore thumbs, and the Mote manages to react (sometimes with the speed of a turning Lusitania, to be sure) based less on the the language than on the specifics, and that the folks in the know do it well.
How about this:
It is a violation of Mote policy to reveal a poster's name, likeness, address, phone number, private email address, and other such information. Additionally, if you abuse someone with private information, you'll be dealt with. That said, you cannot divorce who you are from what is posted, and we don't live in plastic bubbles, and we are human, and all circumsatnces are different . . . so be warned. 885. PelleNilsson - 2/22/2000 4:05:28 AM It would seem to me that Niners Message # 865 substantially supports my Message # 835. We can write up pages of rules but when the shit hits the fan it is always a question of judgement -- by the hosts, by the moderator, by the community at large.
I would like to see a moratorium on this discussion which has become too heated and too much driven by rancor.
At the same time I would like to say that I have a modicum of understanding for those who see a cabal at work in here. In situations like this I can post until I fall down with exhasution without eliciting a reply. I can never really understand, because I'm not American. 886. CalGal - 2/22/2000 4:13:42 AM Pelle,
Are you saying that people have been ignored in this discussion? I didn't respond directly to your posts, but that's because I agreed with them without comment, and I didn't think you'd want to be added to my cabal. 887. Indiana Jones - 2/22/2000 4:19:22 AM Pelle: I also agreed with my fellow Bernese Mountain dog. I don't know if it's American nature or not, but I tend to post more when I disagree. (Except for my occasional "megadittos.")
I especially say less when I agree with someone while others are saying, "We're talking too damn much about this." 888. Indiana Jones - 2/22/2000 4:22:10 AM BTW, would someone help me revive Pelle from his posting "collapse"? 889. PelleNilsson - 2/22/2000 4:35:30 AM Matbe I'm too sensitive. 890. PelleNilsson - 2/22/2000 4:36:01 AM Maybe ...
|
