beastie wrote: I'm genuinely curious about this. I don't think I even saved any Z PMs. And I can't think of what in the world I would have said about Moniker to be interpreted as "real life personal information." As I said, I was one of her defenders.
Check your PM box, Beastie.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Doctor Scratch wrote: I mean, even people like Liz and Ray A have used private information in arguably inappropriate ways on the board.
You'd have to refresh my memory on that one, Scratch. I'd be interested to see the context. Not defending myself; only interested in seeing where I may have erred.
beastie wrote: I'm genuinely curious about this. I don't think I even saved any Z PMs. And I can't think of what in the world I would have said about Moniker to be interpreted as "real life personal information." As I said, I was one of her defenders.
Check your PM box, Beastie.
Neither of the examples Scratch provided privately to me were examples of this:
Real life information is defined as any information that can be used to identify a poster.
Certainly I'm no saint and have said things inappropriate things, sometimes in anger. But I do not recall ever deliberately sharing information about another poster that could be used to identify that poster.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Scottie wrote:Next, we have the subject of where the line is drawn as to what constitutes in real life information. Is it just name? Is it geographic information on where you live? Is it gender?
I have nothing against my real name being used. Far more damaging would be distorted or inaccurate real life information. Rumours, etc. But then if we go that far it would be like a court? It's far more than a name, in my opinion, but the possible destruction of the character of a person.
Jersey Girl wrote:Unless the "newbie" came here for the precise reason of screwing with one of us.
Scottie wrote:First, I don't believe a newbie would even know any in real life information to spread in the first place. Second, if a newbie is posting in real life information, that was probably their purpose from the beginning. Third, if they can't be bothered to read the rules, that is their fault, not ours.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
I'm going to share the rough idea of what Scratch was talking about me to use as an example to discuss the new rule, because the conversation did originally address more than the specific in real life information.
The first example Scratch gave me was that I mentioned a certain poster had been in an abusive relationship. I do not remember mentioning this, but it is possible I did, and it is possible the poster herself had already mentioned it, since she did so on her blog.
The second example was, in fact, my sharing information that another poster had PMd me about a poster's threatening PM to Z mods. So that definitely falls under the not sharing the content of PMs, although I believe I committed this offense prior to the implementation of that rule.
So let's discuss how my infractions would be dealt with under the new rule.
The first thing that needs clarified is that we are only discussing banning as a consequence for sharing real life information that could be used to identify another poster, correct? I'm asking for clarification because originally the rule against sharing "behind the scenes" information was also under discussion, but the current topic seems restricted to "in real life" information. I just want to be sure I understand exactly what is being discussed. I do agree that someone could mistakenly reference something he/she picked up in chat or on a blog, forgetting it wasn't on the board. So that offense doesn't seem to warrant immediate banning to me, but we should be clear about it.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Scottie wrote:It's quite possible that, in the past, many of us have broken what will be the new rule.
All the more reason to have a new rule.
Scratch, you seem to think that beastie fancies herself immune to this new rule? She is subject to it just as everyone else is.
No, I just think that the rule will impact things in ways that people aren't anticipating.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
beastie wrote:The first thing that needs clarified is that we are only discussing banning as a consequence for sharing real life information that could be used to identify another poster, correct? I'm asking for clarification because originally the rule against sharing "behind the scenes" information was also under discussion, but the current topic seems restricted to "in real life" information. I just want to be sure I understand exactly what is being discussed. I do agree that someone could mistakenly reference something he/she picked up in chat or on a blog, forgetting it wasn't on the board. So that offense doesn't seem to warrant immediate banning to me, but we should be clear about it.
I'm of the opinion that we should not lump sharing behind the scenes information with revealing in real life information.
If we want to address the rules of not sharing information that was said in confidence, we can do that, but I believe that is a separate issue. And I'm not sure it's the mods responsibility to protect that information anyways. You should be VERY careful about what you share with internet users.
The in real life information could be obtained through no fault of your own, which is why I believe it deserves a special class of protection.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo