board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Amend Article 3 for RL names: VOTE CLOSED

Post Reply   Page 2 of 3  [ 44 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 »
Author Message
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 13 Jul , 2005 12:52 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5170
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Quote:
Does poster A have a right to have the information edited out by a Ranger?
Yes. Unquestionably (but only after politely asking poster B to remove it, and having poster B refuse or ignore the request).


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 13 Jul , 2005 1:28 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
I feel that opinions are converging here, folks. (They were never very far apart to begin with.) So I've posted a Draft Ballot for your review.

We'll try to vote on all these issues at the same time, and some of them are still being disputed, so this will be up for while for your review.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Impenitent
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 13 Jul , 2005 3:52 am
Try to stay perky
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Wed 29 Dec , 2004 10:54 am
 
Quote:
Article 5: Dispute Resolution
¶9: Offenses That Merit a Penalty
......Offenses for which the maximum penalty is a temporary ban if this is not the first offense and the problem appears to be persistent

ADD:
• Deliberately posting personal, real life information about another member such that their privacy is compromised, or posting any personal information about a minor.
I can see a potential problem here in relation to ToE where many people commonly discuss very personal information about relationships, emotional issues etc, and the person is readily identifiable.

If a poster relates something of a very personal nature, and others then pick up on that and elaborate, counsel, analyze etc ... this would skate very close to conflicting with the above amendment.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 13 Jul , 2005 4:08 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Imp, yes that might skate very close to this.

This is just me, OK, and others might respond differently, but if I saw that a member had introduced the personal information about their own self, I would not consider the responses of other posters to 'compromise privacy.'

If I undress in front of a window, the person passing in the street who sees me nekkid is not a Peeping Tom. :Q

Maybe my interpretation of these things is too strict, or not strict enough :scratch but I think that one can only compromise privacy with information that is intended to be private. If the info is made public by the individual in question ... then their privacy has been surrrendered rather than being compromised.

But it was asked whether a poster could change their mind and decide something they'd posted was too revealing and subsequently deleted it. Could they then ask that other posters erase revealing responses? Those of us who answered all answered "yes." So I think the point is to put the discretion in the hands of the person about whom information is revealed.

But you couldn't call a poster to a hearing if they had responded personally to personal information and then was asked to delete it later. I don't think any of our Rangers would do that, and if they did you wouldn't find a jury supporting them.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 13 Jul , 2005 5:44 am
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
I tend to agree with your interpretation, Jn.

Where it gets tricky though is when someone reveals something personal just in passing, to respond to the topic and not as solitictation of advice, and yet people move in and treat it as a situation calling for advice and discussion. I've seen this happen too. I don't think this should be disallowed under a privacy rule, but I can see why the original poster would feel his privacy had somehow been violated even though the initial revelation was his. This is when it is likely that a request for other posters to nix their responses to the revelation is likely to occur.

I think we have what we need here, in spite of all the possible nuances. Most people here are going to respect privacy, and juries and Rangers are going to mostly have common sense about what is malicious and what isn't. I think having the simple "deliberate comprimise of privacy" clause is sufficient.


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 13 Jul , 2005 10:11 am
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Jny, I agree with your interpretation of these questions, and also think that it's common sense to interpret them this way.
But I'd also appreciate it if the handbook or some other place had some more explicit info on that, the way you describe, because no matter how much common sense it is to interpret it your way, it's still open to any interpretation.

Draft looks fine. :)

_________________

From our key principles:

We listen to one another, make good-faith efforts to understand one another, and we treat one another respectfully at all times.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 13 Jul , 2005 10:37 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Hobby,

There are a number of things that have to be added to the Admin Handbook ... one more won't hurt. :)

When we first starting working on the Charter, we discussed a lot about how things would actually be interpreted by the Rangers using the Charter, and I made a comment to Faramond at one point that we have to spell out as much as possible because these threads are not available to future Rangers as 'precedent.'

But I'm wondering now if it would not be a good idea to put a "policy section" in the charter and simply give links to some of these threads where we have discussed the eye of the beholder and what our intention was in creating certain clauses. Just about every clause about 'objectionable content' was heavily debated here, and I think it would give future Rangers a sense of our intention to be able to read those debates.

I know it helped me very much that I had so much prior opinion to go on (from the Business room) when we first began writing. I would not have known where to begin otherwise.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 13 Jul , 2005 11:20 am
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
Quote:
But I'm wondering now if it would not be a good idea to put a "policy section" in the charter and simply give links to some of these threads where we have discussed the eye of the beholder and what our intention was in creating certain clauses. Just about every clause about 'objectionable content' was heavily debated here, and I think it would give future Rangers a sense of our intention to be able to read those debates.
Absolutely! :) No cross-reference can ever hurt.

_______________
Resident witchâ„¢ [ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 13 Jul , 2005 10:12 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
Jnyusa,

Please do. I've expressed my concern about this very problem several times and in several ways and its been dismissed. I think it is very unfair, especially to Rangers, to expect people to know and remember what needs to be considered for even the normal situations. I assume they have their own handbook, but a little formal guidance is a good idea.

_________________

Idylle in exile: the view over the laptop on a bad day
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 14 Jul , 2005 10:27 am
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
... don't mind me, just double checking something.

The definition (our definition) of a minor is a person of under 18 years of age, right?

I'll need to add that to our Terminology page to bolt all the hatches ;)

_______________
Resident witchâ„¢ [ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Anthriel
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 14 Jul , 2005 4:35 pm
Seeking my nitid muliebrity
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3573
Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 4:15 pm
 
I agree with this!

If a person willingly reveals info on this board, I do not believe it should be edited out. Implicit permission to repeat this information is implied. (Does anyone here think twice about calling Lidless "Steve"?)

However, if a person feels that someone else is either perpetuating information that was not purposefully revealed, or is sharing information that was privately revealed in a public arena, or the person simply changed their mind about sharing personal info, all references to it should be removed.

I really don't think many people would mind removing such references; however, there will be some who will not remove it, or, as has been pointed out, are not available at the time to do so. In these cases, a Ranger editing out this kind of info is entirely appropriate.

All that to say, once again, that I like this draft ballot. ;)


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 14 Jul , 2005 6:36 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Alandriel - good catch! Yes, that should go in Terminology.

Anth - Welcome back! Just in time for the LAST VOTES !!!!!! :banana:

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 15 Jul , 2005 12:01 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
VOTING IS NOW OPEN.

We'll vote for 48 hours until ~11:59 pm GMT on Saturday

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 15 Jul , 2005 12:39 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
1. A

2. A

3. A

4. A

_________________

Idylle in exile: the view over the laptop on a bad day
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
MaidenOfTheShieldarm
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 15 Jul , 2005 12:51 am
Another bright red day
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2402
Joined: Sat 12 Mar , 2005 10:35 pm
Location: Far from the coast of Utopia
 
1. A

2. A

3. A

4. A

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 15 Jul , 2005 1:15 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Question 1: A.

Question 2: A.

Question 3: A.

Question 4: A.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 15 Jul , 2005 7:01 am
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
Q1: A

Q2: A

Q3: A

Q4: A


Top
Profile Quote
Anthriel
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 15 Jul , 2005 9:19 pm
Seeking my nitid muliebrity
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3573
Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 4:15 pm
 
Question 1: A.


Question 2: A.


Question 3: A.


Question 4: A.


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 15 Jul , 2005 9:39 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Question 1: A


Question 2: A


Question 3: A


Question 4: A

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 16 Jul , 2005 1:32 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5170
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Question 1: A


Question 2: A


Question 3: A


Question 4: A


(Looks like we've got some serious groupthink going on here)


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 2 of 3  [ 44 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 »
Jump to: