|
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 ... 891. PincherMartin - 2/22/2000 4:37:02 AM Pelle --
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.
This, and Niner's point in the first paragraph of Message # 884, is similar to the point I made earlier this morning.
It ain't the rules -- either their lack of clarity or anything else about them.
If anything, the people who have been in charge --both here in the Mote and at the Fray -- were too sensitive and polite in discharging their responsibilities.
What we need more than debate or a new charter is somebody's disembodied head stuck on a pole at the Mote Gate, with the warning "Beware, all ye who enter."
892. Seguine - 2/22/2000 4:43:20 AM CG: "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?"
Are you really going to claim you don't recognize it as such? Frankly, it is exactly this sort of line-toeing that I think ought to be addressed in the RoE. My proposal does so. Just as, if you're not sure where you learned "private" info you shouldn't disclose it here, if you're not sure your repetition of "personal" info is merley a rebuttal and not an insult, DON'T DO IT. For if Wabbit thinks it insulting, then under my proposal she may use all means at her disposal to ensure that you cease insulting others with their personal information. Under the proposed new guideline, you would have been advised and should know better. The "abuse" standard is that much clearer for everyone.
DMan: "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?"
Sadly, no. But I trust you'd be capable of exacting as much pain without announcing what he does for a living.
People, this place needn't have the climate of a high school playground to remain lively and amusing. I'm suggesting we promote ourselves to frat house status (which would make us mere college sophomores). I'm frankly astounded that anyone believes this should be more difficult than attempting to ride herd on the present situation.
Then again, perhaps some are simply unwilling to give up some corner of the open definition of "abuse".
893. CalGal - 2/22/2000 4:55:28 AM Are you really going to claim you don't recognize it as such?
As an insult separate and distinct from Cigarlaw, you're an asshole who has no business posting on health care? Yes. If Cig doesn't want his illness to be an issue, he can not mention it online. If someone is unpleasant to Cig or mocking his illness directly and wabbit thinks it is abusive, I would support her deletion of those posts. I would not consider it a misuse of personal information, but an abusive post.
Frankly, I don't see how anyone can ride herd on determining what information that is already available can and can't be used.
Most forums say that you own what you write. I believe that this is at the heart of the Mote as well. Your policy gives people a pass to release what personal information they want, and then complain when it isn't used to the purpose they intended.
I also don't see why you think that the present situation is so difficult to "ride herd" on. We've only had a very few privacy violations, and there haven't been any situations of unusual abuse that I remember.
Then again, perhaps some are simply unwilling to give up some corner of the open definition of "abuse".
Why cast aspersions on motive? Why not figure people just disagree with you?
894. Seguine - 2/22/2000 4:57:56 AM In an unrelated matter, but probably apropos of this thread:
It turns out that real life obligations and opportunities have doomed any likelihood that The Sun's Eye will continue to be published in its present form. The site will eventually be archived in full, at which point CoralReef or I will advise folks in the Mote, but for now TSE should by rights be unlinked.
We truly regret having to fold up before publishing our last planned project, a (leather-bound and scented?) version of Pelle and Uzmakk's hilarious Haysweep exchange. But in spite of the work done so far we must now admit, and with no small disappointment, that we just can't get to it.
Sincerest apologies from us both.
|
 |
Go To Mote #
|
|
