|
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. 98. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 10:46:03 PM Jay, re: #88.
Of course - that's a major reason why we choose pseuodynms! I like being virtual, it's a chance to let down my hair. (and no, Ace, I'm not a transvestite. ;) 99. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 10:47:12 PM
Adam:
Yes. We cannot PREVENT anyone from revealing anyone's personal information on some chat-board we never heard of.
But we can PUNISH people who we CATCH doing it.
Of course we can't stop people from posting personal information if we never find out about it! 100. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:47:14 PM Again the reason you want the victim's request is that only the victim knows for sure if he or she was victimized. You can say whatever you want about niner, and he'll know it's a joke. Someone who despises him won't get the same leeway. 101. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 10:49:57 PM
Jay:
First, I don't think I've ever suggested that PRIVATE GOSSIP should be outlawed. If it remains PRIVATE, no one can do anything about it, right? When it becomes PUBLIC, we can, and should do something about it.
Obviously, I'd like it if no one spread information about me PRIVATELY. But I can't police that, can I? If you want some rule about it, fine, but I don't know how the hell you could ever enforce it.
Second: If it does "Nothing" to ban somebody, then I don't see your reluctance to do it.
Either it does something and it should be done.
Or it does "nothing" and there's no real reason NOT to do it, is there?
102. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:51:38 PM That's right. I obviously think it does something. 103. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 10:52:52 PM Jay,
I'd rather err on the side of aggressiveness. If the 'victim' wants clemency for the bannee, they can request it. The victim may not be online that week --- if we wait for their complaint, then it's way too late.
Ace, We can't control ID's and other things at other sites. Asking Mote people to monitor other sites or even to try and figure out who's doing what under which ID at other sites is beyond the pale. Let's just worry about our own backyard. 104. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:53:48 PM So, Ace, do you agree with:
The language you posted that I've reposted twice
A nanny account that is monitored by judges, whose ruling is final
Ban requests from the victim go to that account by email and can only come from the victim
Public bystander requests for banning are subject to sanctions
105. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 10:54:36 PM Acer, again - with the caveat that if it's linked or referenced here, that's as good as doing it here, no matter who revealed it elsewhere. 106. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 10:55:00 PM
Again the reason you want the victim's request is that only the victim knows for sure if he or she was victimized.
Jay:
Yes, yes, I agree-- in the case of things like "Niner gets hard-ons for Britney Spears." of course you won't know if that's a violation if Niner doesn't tell you. He MUST tell you for you to act.
I am ONLY suggesting automatic action-- without request-- in the case of DE FACTO bannable revelations, i.e., those revelations that no one has to tell you are revelations-- Name. Address. Family Members.
The aggrieved party should be able to ask for clemency, or can even CLEAR the offender by just saying (even lying, if they want) that they gave the outer permission to make that revelation. ANd then, fine. Vaya con Dios.
But if, say, CalGal's name is outed, and we ask her, "Cal, did you give this person permission to out your name?" and she says "No," then why do we really need Cal's request for action?
I am flexible on the point. An "unwilling witness" can always LIE to get the criminal off, by just saying "Oh, sure, I told her to do that."
But there are meek types out there. If, say, a stark raving psychopath outs CalGal, and she's too nice or too afraid to ask for his banning, then congratulations, no action is taken, and we can now wait for the psychopath to out his NEXT victim. 107. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:55:07 PM Adam,
You delete an offending message, and wait for the request. Although I agree that in egregious cases--you have a point. I guess I don't expect any egregious cases. 108. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 10:55:57 PM Jay,
If you give the hosts power to delete the posts and let the actual banning wait for the victim's request, that's not a bad compromise. 109. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:56:25 PM Yeah, I'm all right with that. Suspended until clemency is issued in egregrious cases. 110. JayAckroyd - 9/17/1999 10:57:20 PM The post gets deleted iac. That's not in dispute--except when people are trying to be tricky, and the host doesn't notice.
|
