What constitutes in real life information and what is the punishment?

[_ttribe]

But do you believe he broke any rules according to what is being proposed? Should intent and malice go into the decision making process?

In other words, should a mod be able to say that a poster didn't technically break any rules, but... come on!! Personally, I don't like this approach because I think this opens dangerous grounds for biased moderation.

I think you are into squishy territory once you open the door to mod interpretation of intent. In that case, it was clear to me, but others may disagree. I don't think you want to go down that path.

The posting of the picture was a no-brainer though - that's a pretty clear violation, in my opinion.

[_Scottie]

I think you are into squishy territory once you open the door to mod interpretation of intent. In that case, it was clear to me, but others may disagree. I don't think you want to go down that path.

The posting of the picture was a no-brainer though - that's a pretty clear violation, in my opinion.

I agree.

[_Nimrod]

Just curious, which posters in this thread have their sights set on running for Congress, or the local PTA board?

[_ttribe]

Just curious, which posters in this thread have their sights set on running for Congress, or the local PTA board?

Is that going to be the standard for protection of privacy? Political ambitions?

[_Scottie]

Just curious, which posters in this thread have their sights set on running for Congress, or the local PTA board?

Right now? Or 20 years in the future?

[_beastie]

Just curious, which posters in this thread have their sights set on running for Congress, or the local PTA board?

Here are some more realistic questions:

1. Which posters may want to change jobs one day?
2. Which posters do not want to be forced to confront controversial belief issues with family and friends?
3. Which posters are trying to protect/preserve familial relationships by avoiding religious topics altogether, or by not being fully open about the depth of his/her disbelief?
4. Which posters live in a community in which critical comments about religion in general, or Mormonism in particular could negatively impact social interactions?
5. Which posters might be uncomfortable knowing that certain other participants know their real name and address?

[_Doctor Scratch]

A couple of thoughts. Beastie cited something early on that talks about "public figures." What does that mean, exactly? Just politicians? DCP, I think most would agree, is a "public figure" in the world of online Mormonism. Are other professors, too?

Re: the 3-tiered thing, I think it's dumb. Mainly because it would be impossible to enforce, with no real standards, too much subjectivity, etc. Plus, if you think about it, the list of people who've "violated" these proposed rules would include a huge chunk of people. I mean, even people like Liz and Ray A have used private information in arguably inappropriate ways on the board. And how many of the pro-rules people would want to see either of them get banned, even if they did this sort of thing again? I sure wouldn't. I'll put up with Liz dangling private information over my head, because I'm more interested in the community and the board than in seeing people get punished.

Much has been made of the fact that I referred here to a thread on another board in which I posted under my full name. Such a reference does not imply permission to use my full name on this board. Any analogous situation: same goes.

Well, this board was founded on the principal of allowing "board wars," and of linking to information on other messageboards. So this would be an awfully stupid rule. Suppose that Bill Hamblin announces on MAD that he's delivering a Mopologetic lecture in San Francisco in August. Are we supposed to not mention that, since he didn't give us permission to discuss it here?

Some time ago, jskains posted a video of himself on YouTube where he was lecturing all of the critics here on MDB. Is this another case of "do not mention!" simply because we didn't go and get his permission first? Heck, Skains was threatening lawsuits after I put up his ZLMB avatar on my blog.

Should there ever be a banning? Yes. I like the "three strikes" approach here. Every community has some rules for participation. I can't use a community pool if I stand on the edge of it in full view of others and urinate into it, even though that probably does no actual harm to anyone. There are standards, and having some minimal standards does not create some kind of intolerable totalitarian state, nor does it tend in that direction.

Our community already has rules and consequences. Your problem is that you don't think the consequences are severe enough. If someone divulges private info---well, they'll lose others' trust, or get branded as evil/unlikable, etc. Likewise, if someone is slinging a lot of insults at a person and picking a fight, and the target of the insults happens to have dirt on the person, then the insult-slinger risks having that dirty laundry aired on the board. Those are the consequences; it's just like the non-virtual world. If you have a friend who knows all about your past history as, say, a stalker or a thief, is it a good idea to pick a fight with that friend? You can hope that he won't tell people about your past misdeeds, but in the end that's his prerogative.

And Professor-Trevor-the-Classicist-Who-Presented-on-JS-and-Performance-at-Sunstone (your new name on the board as far as I'm concerned): you have no case to claim that someone really did "violate" your privacy or expose you, since, as you've now admitted a couple of times, you had already made it well known who you are in real life. This is why you keep tossing in this caveat about how you don't want retroactive punishment---and let's face it, with these proposed rules, *all* punishment would wind up being retroactive. There is no way to stop people from using information that posters allow onto the boards. (I believe it was Euthypro [sp?] who pointed this out on the other thread.) People like Trevor and Tim are making a crappy argument that material that surfaces on, say, Times & Seaons, The Foyer, or MAD, should not be mentionable here, which is really a form of censorship. The "community" is not just this board, as you and Tim are implying. It extends into the FAIRblog and Wiki, to RfM, to the FARMS Review, and so on and so forth. Do you guys want to make it "illegal" to post stuff from those places, too? What about old ZLMB posts? Are those now off-limits, since they happened some years ago? Well, I wont allow myself to be bullied by types who are arguing for this type of censorship. I want to be protected from rules like this, even if I get embroiled in a spirited debate.

What the rule advocates here are really just arguing for are rules will force people to be nice, which in the end is a lame and naïvely idealistic (not to mention kind of fascist, albeit very TBM) argument.

[_Scottie]

Scratch, since you are here, I'm curious why you thought it would be okay to post Tim's picture on that thread and use his name like you did. It seemed a tad unethical to me, but perhaps you have a reason for doing so?

[_ttribe]

What the rule advocates here are really just arguing for are rules will force people to be nice, which in the end is a lame and naïvely idealistic (not to mention kind of fascist, albeit very TBM) argument.

Of course you build this argument. To allow this talk of a "rule" to continue would be to lose a tactical advantage you've enjoyed on this board throughout the duration of your participation. You know some of us won't stoop that low; but you have no problem doing so.

[_beastie]

Our community already has rules and consequences. Your problem is that you don't think the consequences are severe enough. If someone divulges private info---well, they'll lose others' trust, or get branded as evil/unlikable, etc. Likewise, if someone is slinging a lot of insults at a person and picking a fight, and the target of the insults happens to have dirt on the person, then the insult-slinger risks having that dirty laundry aired on the board. Those are the consequences; it's just like the non-virtual world. If you have a friend who knows all about your past history as, say, a stalker or a thief, is it a good idea to pick a fight with that friend? You can hope that he won't tell people about your past misdeeds, but in the end that's his prerogative.

So, the end result of this would be that posters should engage in a healthy amount of ass-kissing to any poster who has the reputation of using personal information in a punitive fashion.

And Professor-Trevor-the-Classicist-Who-Presented-on-JS-and-Performance-at-Sunstone (your new name on the board as far as I'm concerned): you have no case to claim that someone really did "violate" your privacy or expose you, since, as you've now admitted a couple of times, you had already made it well known who you are in real life. This is why you keep tossing in this caveat about how you don't want retroactive punishment---and let's face it, with these proposed rules, *all* punishment would wind up being retroactive. There is no way to stop people from using information that posters allow onto the boards. (I believe it was Euthypro [sp?] who pointed this out on the other thread.) People like Trevor and Tim are making a crappy argument that material that surfaces on, say, Times & Seaons, The Foyer, or MAD, should not be mentionable here, which is really a form of censorship. The "community" is not just this board, as you and Tim are implying. It extends into the FAIRblog and Wiki, to RfM, to the FARMS Review, and so on and so forth. Do you guys want to make it "illegal" to post stuff from those places, too? What about old ZLMB posts? Are those now off-limits, since they happened some years ago? Well, I wont allow myself to be bullied by types who are arguing for this type of censorship. I want to be protected from rules like this, even if I get embroiled in a spirited debate.

What the rule advocates here are really just arguing for are rules will force people to be nice, which in the end is a lame and naïvely idealistic (not to mention kind of fascist, albeit very TBM) argument.

You may have an argument if people were arguing for banning in response to name-calling and other insulting behavior, but we’re not. We’re calling for banning as a possible response to one very particular behavior that has the potential to do real damage to one’s real life.

I understand that you and a few others seem to think that this rule would be censorship and a form of “bullying.” For the life of me, I can’t see how using stringent consequences to discourage the sharing of real-life information is censorship and bullying, but I understand that’s the way you see it. If the rest of the community agrees with you, then I think posters have the information they need to determine their level of participation. And that is what is most valuable about this discussion. It’s not to force other posters to agree with position X or position Y, in my opinion – it’s to find out what the consensus of this community is, and once having discovered that, whether or not it is a community with which we wish to participate.