Is it ok if real names aren't used? Just curious. I assume if someone said don't include me or this then that would have to be respected right? I know there are things about me I wouldn't want in there. I haven't brought anything of use to this forum lol.
This is a reference work devoted to this boards' activities under the assumed names of various avatars. One of the things that makes it interesting is the distinction that is assumed to exist between the persona that appears on the board and the in real life person who is its author. These authors have the option of writing about their own avatar, or they may choose to allow someone else to author it. Anyone who does not write an entry for their avatar is tacitly allowing someone else to do it. I don't anticipate asking people's permission to have their avatar(s) included in the book, as anyone can search this site and gain access to the posts. The decision to post publicly on this forum under a particular avatar assumes the author is fine sharing that persona's posts. So, I don't see any reason to ask permission again.
But, I do get how my views on vicarious work in the temple might inspire some to pick at these nits.
Reverend, something about the consent issue doesn't sit right with me, and I don't think it should be dismissed as a "nit." I don't think it's a legal issue (as long as the project avoids potentially defamatory statements), but more of a moral-ethical issue. I don't think that my personal moral/ethical code permits me to associate myself with a project that effectively says to the users here: "We" are going to publish a book that will have an entry about you. If you don't choose to write the entry, someone else will write it. I don't want to be part of that "we." I take our members' privacy and anonymity pretty seriously, and publishing anything about a member against their will seems to go against what I consider to be my part of the deal when it comes to my official position with DM. Yes, the board contains all sorts of information about each of us scattered throughout the body of posts. But condensing some of that information into an easily accessible form, in my opinion, increases the risk of users being identified in real life. Even if the risk is tiny, I think the decision of whether to accept that risk should be made by the member.
I haven't thought about this issue enough to form a firm opinion. But I think it's appropriate to air my concerns.
he/him When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.
Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
Reverend, something about the consent issue doesn't sit right with me, and I don't think it should be dismissed as a "nit." I don't think it's a legal issue (as long as the project avoids potentially defamatory statements), but more of a moral-ethical issue. I don't think that my personal moral/ethical code permits me to associate myself with a project that effectively says to the users here: "We" are going to publish a book that will have an entry about you. If you don't choose to write the entry, someone else will write it. I don't want to be part of that "we." I take our members' privacy and anonymity pretty seriously, and publishing anything about a member against their will seems to go against what I consider to be my part of the deal when it comes to my official position with DM. Yes, the board contains all sorts of information about each of us scattered throughout the body of posts. But condensing some of that information into an easily accessible form, in my opinion, increases the risk of users being identified in real life. Even if the risk is tiny, I think the decision of whether to accept that risk should be made by the member.
I haven't thought about this issue enough to form a firm opinion. But I think it's appropriate to air my concerns.
RI, I take your objection seriously. I am willing to rethink the situation and talk it through. It could be that it is necessary to rethink the whole thing. I am inclined to think that completeness makes this project worthwhile. Dictionaries and Encyclopedias are assumed to be as exhaustive as possible. Maybe you are saying we just should not have such a thing. If we rely on consent, the process becomes cumbersome. At any time someone can come along and object, requiring us to edit this down, if we adhere to such an idealistic standard. The task would be big enough as it is without turning it into an ongoing negotiation. I say that not to be cheeky. I also kinda suspect the motives underlying the question are originating in the temple discussion. I admit that I am not a huge fan of John Dehlin’s idea of informed consent, which may be nice in theory but does not ultimately work.
Perhaps we are not the kind of community that can bear such differences of opinion and complete such a project as a community.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
Reverend, something about the consent issue doesn't sit right with me, and I don't think it should be dismissed as a "nit." I don't think it's a legal issue (as long as the project avoids potentially defamatory statements), but more of a moral-ethical issue. I don't think that my personal moral/ethical code permits me to associate myself with a project that effectively says to the users here: "We" are going to publish a book that will have an entry about you. If you don't choose to write the entry, someone else will write it. I don't want to be part of that "we." I take our members' privacy and anonymity pretty seriously, and publishing anything about a member against their will seems to go against what I consider to be my part of the deal when it comes to my official position with DM. Yes, the board contains all sorts of information about each of us scattered throughout the body of posts. But condensing some of that information into an easily accessible form, in my opinion, increases the risk of users being identified in real life. Even if the risk is tiny, I think the decision of whether to accept that risk should be made by the member.
I haven't thought about this issue enough to form a firm opinion. But I think it's appropriate to air my concerns.
RI, I take your objection seriously. I am willing to rethink the situation and talk it through. It could be that it is necessary to rethink the whole thing. I am inclined to think that completeness makes this project worthwhile. Dictionaries and Encyclopedias are assumed to be as exhaustive as possible. Maybe you are saying we just should not have such a thing. If we rely on consent, the process becomes cumbersome. At any time someone can come along and object, requiring us to edit this down, if we adhere to such an idealistic standard. The task would be big enough as it is without turning it into an ongoing negotiation. I say that not to be cheeky. I also kinda suspect the motives underlying the question are originating in the temple discussion. I admit that I am not a huge fan of John Dehlin’s idea of informed consent, which may be nice in theory but does not ultimately work.
Perhaps we are not the kind of community that can bear such differences of opinion and complete such a project as a community.
Thanks, Kish. I didn't think you were being cheeky at all. You've described exactly the issues I'm wrestling with. I agree with you that a very large part of the project's value is completeness. And negotiating the content of entries that people decline to draft about themselves would likely very burdensome.
I wish I had spotted the issue days ago instead of now. It just didn't strike me until the exchange between you and IHQ. While I see the parallels between this discussion and the temple ordinances thread, I take IHQ's concern at face value.
I'd like to see others' views on this issue, as my thinking may simply be off track. Sometimes it takes some rumination before feeling comfortable taking any kind of firm position.
he/him When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.
Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
Reverend, something about the consent issue doesn't sit right with me, and I don't think it should be dismissed as a "nit." I don't think it's a legal issue (as long as the project avoids potentially defamatory statements), but more of a moral-ethical issue. I don't think that my personal moral/ethical code permits me to associate myself with a project that effectively says to the users here: "We" are going to publish a book that will have an entry about you. If you don't choose to write the entry, someone else will write it. I don't want to be part of that "we." I take our members' privacy and anonymity pretty seriously, and publishing anything about a member against their will seems to go against what I consider to be my part of the deal when it comes to my official position with DM. Yes, the board contains all sorts of information about each of us scattered throughout the body of posts. But condensing some of that information into an easily accessible form, in my opinion, increases the risk of users being identified in real life. Even if the risk is tiny, I think the decision of whether to accept that risk should be made by the member.
I haven't thought about this issue enough to form a firm opinion. But I think it's appropriate to air my concerns.
RI, I take your objection seriously. I am willing to rethink the situation and talk it through. It could be that it is necessary to rethink the whole thing. I am inclined to think that completeness makes this project worthwhile. Dictionaries and Encyclopedias are assumed to be as exhaustive as possible. Maybe you are saying we just should not have such a thing. If we rely on consent, the process becomes cumbersome. At any time someone can come along and object, requiring us to edit this down, if we adhere to such an idealistic standard. The task would be big enough as it is without turning it into an ongoing negotiation. I say that not to be cheeky. I also kinda suspect the motives underlying the question are originating in the temple discussion. I admit that I am not a huge fan of John Dehlin’s idea of informed consent, which may be nice in theory but does not ultimately work.
Perhaps we are not the kind of community that can bear such differences of opinion and complete such a project as a community.
How about... In the meantime... Focus on what people want to put in to start with and then as the idea starts to form a shape, then people can look to adding sort of like an appendix of those who were unable to share in a, I remember this fondly about this person or whatever everyone agrees. So do what can be done without fallout before considering and discussing how to get around the completeness.
Because if people get hung up on ethics nothing will happen and I think it's a great idea. But I would be freaked out if I didn't know about this and then suddenly however many years down the line, read a book that contained some of the crap I've posted on here. I wouldn't mind if someone wrote, I remember IWMP, she was a bit weird... Or something vague like that but if I read that I shared childhood trauma and I lived here and there and you know specific details but I didn't know about it, I'd feel a bit uncomfortable.
Don't give up though. It sounds awesome. And it can be as big an undertaking as you want to make it. If it's like, I Bible containing every dispute and conversation, that might be a bit much for some. And some might like that.
This is a reference work devoted to this boards' activities under the assumed names of various avatars. One of the things that makes it interesting is the distinction that is assumed to exist between the persona that appears on the board and the in real life person who is its author. These authors have the option of writing about their own avatar, or they may choose to allow someone else to author it. Anyone who does not write an entry for their avatar is tacitly allowing someone else to do it. I don't anticipate asking people's permission to have their avatar(s) included in the book, as anyone can search this site and gain access to the posts. The decision to post publicly on this forum under a particular avatar assumes the author is fine sharing that persona's posts. So, I don't see any reason to ask permission again.
I won’t be participating in this project, and I explicitly refuse permission for someone else to author an entry in your book for me, or about me.
Thanks, Kish. I didn't think you were being cheeky at all. You've described exactly the issues I'm wrestling with. I agree with you that a very large part of the project's value is completeness. And negotiating the content of entries that people decline to draft about themselves would likely very burdensome.
I wish I had spotted the issue days ago instead of now. It just didn't strike me until the exchange between you and IHQ. While I see the parallels between this discussion and the temple ordinances thread, I take IHQ's concern at face value.
I'd like to see others' views on this issue, as my thinking may simply be off track. Sometimes it takes some rumination before feeling comfortable taking any kind of firm position.
Yes, it will be good to hear from others.
I also wonder what might have happened if I had not proposed such a group project and instead simply wrote it and presented a link to the Amazon.com entry to sell it. Would people have been angry? Would they have considered it intrusive or a violation of their privacy and right to (withhold) consent?
Or would they found it really cool and purchased a copy?
One might argue that it was presenting this as a group project that ironically raised the issues of privacy and consent. People write books that include the words and deeds of anonymous online posters in a journalistic vein without seeking consent or receiving serious opposition.
Have the journalists writing about Q asked permission to write about and quote the online personae in their books? If those people get angry, are they in the right to object?
Just feeling out the issues here.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
How about... In the meantime... Focus on what people want to put in to start with and then as the idea starts to form a shape, then people can look to adding sort of like an appendix of those who were unable to share in a, I remember this fondly about this person or whatever everyone agrees. So do what can be done without fallout before considering and discussing how to get around the completeness.
Because if people get hung up on ethics nothing will happen and I think it's a great idea. But I would be freaked out if I didn't know about this and then suddenly however many years down the line, read a book that contained some of the crap I've posted on here. I wouldn't mind if someone wrote, I remember IWMP, she was a bit weird... Or something vague like that but if I read that I shared childhood trauma and I lived here and there and you know specific details but I didn't know about it, I'd feel a bit uncomfortable.
Don't give up though. It sounds awesome. And it can be as big an undertaking as you want to make it. If it's like, I Bible containing every dispute and conversation, that might be a bit much for some. And some might like that.
Good ideas, IWMP! I like your perspective on this. That sounds like a good approach. Two sections: 1) autobiographical entries and 2) remembrances. We should discuss this option seriously.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
