Response To Criticism and the Road Ahead

[_Trevor]

I'm not saying GoodK holds all the blame. I'm saying he's not blameless and he should have foreseen the outcome when he posted the email.

I would agree with you, had he said, "hey, I'm Eric Norwood, and guess what my crazy family is doing!" He might have foreseen what could happen, but you make it sound as though it was inevitable. I really don't see it that way.

Neither GoodK nor Daniel cares diddly about this community. They have both expressed disdain for everyone here. This is just a further manifestation of that disdain.

And that makes not one iota of difference when we consider which ethics we choose to abide by.

This isn't MAD, Trevor. We take whoever can take the heat. The only one we really need is Shades. If Daniel or GoodK can't take the heat, then neither would be missed any more than I would be if I left and never came back.

Sorry, Shades would be very lonely and ignored if no one else participated. You take whoever can take the heat, and it seems that you allow anyone to turn up the heat as high as they want, even if it cooks the board out of existence. Not that this would be a huge tragedy, but this place can be a fun pastime.

[_Ray A]

If he didn't want his family exposed, then he shouldn't have used them in his jab at the church. There is NO expectation of privacy here, or anywhere on the net. (That is why some of guard our anonymity so closely.) To expect people to ignore something posted in public on the internet is simply beyond naïve into downright stupid.

He was posting as GoodK. I did not have a clue who he was, nor his family. And at the time I doubt anyone else did, except those who knew him personally.

[_dblagent007]

who posted first?

I'm pretty sure DCP posted first. However, I didn't care about a thread about GoodK's ethical dilemmas so I didn't read it until it started to take off (showed lots of posts). However, when GoodK started a thread about DCP being addicted to a drug I had never heard of, that piqued my interest so I immediately read it.

[_harmony]

If he didn't want his family exposed, then he shouldn't have used them in his jab at the church. There is NO expectation of privacy here, or anywhere on the net. (That is why some of guard our anonymity so closely.) To expect people to ignore something posted in public on the internet is simply beyond naïve into downright stupid.

He was posting as GoodK. I did not have a clue who he was, nor his family. And at the time I doubt anyone else did, except those who knew him personally.

Neither did I. I still don't. So? It's because there is no expectation of privacy that it's wise to think of the consequences before hitting that Submit button.

[_Trevor]

That would require that I take a side, which I refuse to do. I didn't tell him to grow up (you may have me confused with another poster). I simply commented on his level of maturity, based on my own observations.

Which is implicitly telling him to grow up, or else you would keep that nugget of information out of his view. What I am pointing out is that by treating the question of banning people for legal threats seriously, and not treating outing people in the in real life world as ban-worthy, we are all implicitly contributing to the formation of a certain set of values regarding participation here. You are no less a part of this process than I have been.

I also did not call for either of the principals to be banned. You are again confusing me with another poster.

Presumably you understand that we are part of a larger conversation, which means that I am likely bring in issues pertinent to that conversation. I do this with the understanding that we are not alone and anyone can jump in at any time.

[Guest]

He was posting as GoodK. I did not have a clue who he was, nor his family. And at the time I doubt anyone else did, except those who knew him personally.

I love it how Ray A makes so much sense.
.
.
.
.

[_Daniel Peterson]

So either DCP has atrocious reading skills or he was using the post as an opportunity to mess with GoodK personally. If you want to talk about "what started this mess" it would have to be DCP taking a post, intentionally misreading it (or reading what he wanted to), and using it against GoodK because he could (remorselessly, I might add).

Okay. I just can't take this without response.

I provided a link to GoodK's remark, essentially without comment, to GoodK's stepfather, whom I've known for more than two decades now.

How that demonstrates "remorselessness" and "atrocious misreading" eludes me, I'm afraid.

It was a simple thing. Most here think it was a bad idea on my part to do so. Perhaps it was. (I don't think so.) But, whatever it was, it certainly wasn't a remorseless, atrocious act of misreading, or a cruel attempt to hurt anyone. I simply sent a link to somebody. It was somebody I've known (and liked) for more than two decades, who had, I must explain, occasionally discussed with me during those years some of his difficult interactions with his stepson. I did it with considerable reluctance, and said so, but I felt that I should. I reasoned that, had the roles been reversed, I would have appreciated being informed. He expressed thanks to me for passing it on.

[_Ray A]

If someone makes false statements of fact about you, then that is a different story, but only in theory. The reality is that pursuing someone for Internet libel is rarely worth the effort, unless you suffered actual damages greater than the cost of the attorney fees that it would take to recover the damages.

I agree with that. It can be costly and time-consuming, and I wouldn't pursue it myself.

[_beastie]

I shared this information at the time it all occurred, but when I was a mod on ZLMB, the rules were that if unwanted real life information was revealed, or people were "outed" in real life, the poster would not only be banned from ZLMB but from every board run by ezboards. This was the directive from ezboards, from their legal department.

I would suspect that's pretty standard for internet boards of any significant size.

DCP, were you or were you not aware of the general idea of "netiquette" including not outing people in real life?

[_Trevor]

It was a simple thing. Most here think it was a bad idea on my part to do so. Perhaps it was. (I don't think so.) But, whatever it was, it certainly wasn't a remorseless, atrocious act of misreading, or a cruel attempt to hurt anyone. I simply sent a link to somebody. It was somebody I've known (and liked) for more than two decades, who had, I must explain, occasionally discussed with me during those years some of his difficult interactions with his stepson. I did it with considerable reluctance, and said so, but I felt that I should. I reasoned that, had the roles been reversed, I would have appreciated being informed. He expressed thanks to me for passing it on.

I can see why you did it, and I think it was the wrong decision, and I am completely fine with you disagreeing with me on that. I wish that this whole thing had just mercifully passed into oblivion, and I do not relish the thought of anyone being sued or counter-sued over this affair.