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

[_MCB]

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.

Agreed. The libel and slander that was circulated against me in an unnamed RL community, and destroyed my professional credibility had very little to do with the real me, and everything to do with my ancestry and non-Mormonness. Except that their actions exposed a big fat Mormon lie. "Oh, no, we are GOOD people, we wouldn't practice intergenerational blood-feud."

[_beastie]

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.

I agree. I think that will be a much murkier issue, as well.

[_ttribe]

This story may apply (at least on the periphery) to the issues at hand: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/06/ ... test=faces

[_marg]

I have a hypothetical, which, before I set it out, I want people to understand that I am not advocating this. I am thinking out loud to help us as we work through these arguments:

We know that Glaxar likes to poke at Dr. Gunderson. Dr. Gunderson posts under his real name and as something of a public figure in the Mormon world. Glaxar notices that Dr. Gunderson is giving a lecture in Idaho on anti-Mormonism, and so Glaxar posts something about that here with lots of derogatory statements about Gunderson and his lecture.

Does this constitute an illicit revelation of in real life information?

No, because the idea is to protect posters on this board and enable them to express opinions free from direct evidence which links them to their real full names. If Gunderson posts here with his real name he has set himself up for open criticism.

By comparison, let's say that Benjamin Peck, MD, posts anti-Mormon comments here under the name BPeck. Peck has a LinkedIn account which he links to on another website on which he posts. Glaxar finds this out, and decides to have some fun with Ben by posting the information here. Peck lives in Utah and has many LDS clients, some of whom could find their way to this site and decide not only to quit seeing Ben as a physician, but to tell all of his LDS friends the same. Ben's practice is destroyed because most of his clientelle has vanished.

Is there anything wrong with Glaxar's actions? Is this something worth trying to prevent with a rule that has some bite attached?

Yes, since Peck posts here then anything posted by others to link him to his full real name or identify him, should be disallowed because in that case his ability to express opinions is hindered because of the potential ramifications of those in his real world using his opinions against him.

[_beastie]

This story may apply (at least on the periphery) to the issues at hand: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/06/ ... test=faces

I do suspect that part of the reason some internet boards are so strict about real-life identity issues is for their own protection, in the case of serious future problems.

[_Jersey Girl]

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.

Scottie...sharing behind the scenes information (PM's/chat) on the board is already in the rules.

Sheesh.

I think that beastie wanted to know, and I do too, if others feel that sharing behind the scenes information on the board (PM's/chat) should require a similar series of consequences as is under discussion for using in real life information.

[_marg]

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?

If he doesn't post here, he can be discussed with what he presents elsewhere. If he posts here under his real name again it can be discussed. If he posts here as Bill, then if he is linked to that outside post, it would be wrong, because everything else he posts here would/could be identified with him and his full real name.

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.

If he posts here as jskains then linking to the video and referring to him as jskains would NOT be a wrong. However if you said Joe Skains or whatever his name is, when he hasn't put his name here that would be wrong because googling Joe and Skains could bring people here and identify him with all his posts.

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.

I think that would be okay to call Trevor this, it wouldn't enable co workers for example to link him to this board. People on this board could find out who he is, and if he doesn't want that then he could request the address to deleted and you refrain from further use since he doesn't want people on the board being able to easily link him to his real name.

[_Ray A]

I do suspect that part of the reason some internet boards are so strict about real-life identity issues is for their own protection, in the case of serious future problems.

It’s difficult to tell which way this is going. I recently read a report that some news media editors are considering restricting comments to real names, to avoid “spam” and abuse. That’s not to suggest that all anonymous posters are out of control, but many are. Other media, like Oz’s ABC online forums, strongly encourage anonymity, or at the least a variation of or part of your real name (such as Trevor has done). So the debate is in progress, and I don’t think media comment is the same as forum comment. In the old print media you could not be published unless you supplied your verifiable real name and address, which was published (name and suburb). With the Internet all that has changed, but if you comment in many online media, you must supply your real name and email address (kept private by Admin), even if you use a pseudonym.

Here is one view of a possible future direction: Paul Carr versus the Internet Anonymity – Manifesto.

He’s talking mainly about trolls. The dilemma is that some people use anonymity to abuse, and others use it for genuine personal protection, as is being discussed on this thread. I mentioned before that I deleted a whole blog because I was afraid there were too many potentially libellous comments from me. In my second (and now existing) blog I’ve been a lot more careful. It’s not hard for Google to track down who you are anyway, and in Britain and Australia we have much heftier defamation laws than the US, which could land you in jail for up to two years if convicted.

Another view: The psychology behind anonymous Internet posts

IMPORTANCE OF ANONYMITY
While online anonymity has created a medium for malicious gossip, it also plays an important role in our society.
“Even since the days of our founding fathers, there have been people talking about the importance of being anonymous,” Wesch said. “Revolutionary acts, sometimes, require anonymity.”

Wesch is studying an online movement called “Anonymous” in which people meet anonymously online and participate in activities like planning protests.
The group gained notoriety when it launched a mass protest against the church of Scientology, demonstrating in the Guy Fawkes masks made famous by the movie “V for Vendetta.”

Wesch said “Anonymous” shows how important the ability to stay anonymous can be.
“It’s important to mention the importance of anonymity to a functioning government,” Wesch said. “It’s possible to imagine a situation when people are afraid to speak out, and at that point, I think, we need to have the option to be anonymous.”

This is a bit of a diversion. But in any case, I’m very sympathetic to posters who desire anonymity; especially posters who use familiar monikers and establish a reputation for intelligent and enlightening commentary. The idea of “exposing” such posters out of a misguided notion of revenge or “getting even” should not be tolerated. Jersey Girl’s suggested penalties seem reasonable to me, but may need some fine-tuning. I think in the end anonymity can be used for productive criticism, or destructive criticism. The latter doesn’t bode well for the future of the Internet.

[_Trevor]

marg,

I have enjoyed your posts on this thread. Just thought I would let you know.

Best,

T

[_Trevor]

This is a bit of a diversion. But in any case, I’m very sympathetic to posters who desire anonymity; especially posters who use familiar monikers and establish a reputation for intelligent and enlightening commentary. The idea of “exposing” such posters out of a misguided notion of revenge or “getting even” should not be tolerated. Jersey Girl’s suggested penalties seem reasonable to me, but may need some fine-tuning. I think in the end anonymity can be used for productive criticism, or destructive criticism. The latter doesn’t bode well for the future of the Internet.

There is a lot to chew on here. I view anonymity as important to those who struggle with Mormonism. And, frankly, some critics of Mormonism here would seem to value their own anonymity very highly. Interesting how different aspects of this issue collide right here on MDB, and we struggle to find the right way of handling it.

I personally regret that I felt it was necessary to enter into such a discussion. I disliked the FAIRboard and I dislike MA&D. I am not eager to restrict freedom, but I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that there must be more robust protection of anonymity, and I believe it will benefit both critics and apologists to have it. Religious debates are highly contentious and become extremely personal in short order. I cannot rely on the restraint of others and their goodwill, or, rather, I will no longer rely on that alone.

The policy ideas that Jersey Girl, beastie, and Scottie have discussed are reasonable in my opinion, and I do not see them constituting a restriction on the productive discussion of Mormon issues from either a critical or an apologetic perspective.

Thanks again, Ray.