Response To Criticism and the Road Ahead

[_Daniel Peterson]

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

I'm not sure where I've seen any formal codification of "netiquette," and don't know that there's a unified, agreed-upon, set of "netiquette" rules.

As it is, though, I've never revealed on-line the identity of anybody whose identity I knew and who didn't want his or her identity known. That is specifically true with regard to GoodK, whose identity I've known for quite a while now, and it's true with regard to at least a couple of other mainstays here on this board. I haven't outed them, and they can rest assured that I won't.

However, I've always felt entirely free to send links to other people who might be interested in something, and to speculate, off-line, that x sounds like y, or that A really reminds me of B, or to say that I'm pretty sure that Pseudonym is Proper Name. In GoodK's case, once he identified himself as the stepson of the man who had sent out a letter that I too had received, I knew exactly who he was. But I still said nothing about his identity on line. I've been very careful not to reveal his identity (or anybody else's), and was surprised only within the past few days to learn that -- because of his "Mormon Gulag" activities -- essentially everybody here knows it.

[_Trevor]

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

Far be it from us even to attempt to enforce basic rules. It's the Wild, Wild West, dontchya know?

[_Trevor]

In GoodK's case, once he identified himself as the stepson of the man who had sent out a letter that I too had received, I knew exactly who he was. But I still said nothing about his identity on line. I've been very careful not to reveal his identity (or anybody else's), and was surprised only within the past few days to learn that -- because of his "Mormon Gulag" activities -- essentially everybody here knows it.

I don't expect we will have much of an exchange about this, but it seems like you are suggesting that posting the letter constituted him revealing his own identity. Ergo, there was nothing for you to reveal except the fact that he had posted the letter online. Am I following?

[_Ray A]

In GoodK's case, once he identified himself as the stepson of the man who had sent out a letter that I too had received, I knew exactly who he was. But I still said nothing about his identity on line.

What sort of reaction did you expect from Eric's step-dad? Or even desire?

[_harmony]

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.

There is nothing inherently wrong with or bad about being young and/or immature, Trevor. It is what it is.

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 haven't played a bg part in either discussion. My participation here does not require that I participate in every discussion, even superficially. Shades makes the rules; I try to follow them. When I don't, my posts get moved to Outer Darkness just like anyone else's. I have no more expectation of special treatment here than I do of an inherent privacy of any post I put up. No one controls the discussion here (which is why we have threads with so many different subjects being discussed at the same time).

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.

My mistake. I thought you were directing your remarks to me.

[Anonymous]

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.

I can understand this to a point. I would want to be told of serious issues about my children if they were minors. Once my children become legal adults, I consider them off limits to verbal scrutiny by family and friends unless they are doing something illegal or seriously harmful to others or themselves. If one of my adult children decides to flip me the bird without my knowledge, I don't want (or need) family or friends to tell me about it.

[_beastie]

I'm not sure where I've seen any formal codification of "netiquette," and don't know that there's a unified, agreed-upon, set of "netiquette" rules.

As it is, though, I've never revealed on-line the identity of anybody whose identity I knew and who didn't want his or her identity known. That is specifically true with regard to GoodK, whose identity I've known for quite a while now, and it's true with regard to at least a couple of other mainstays here on this board. I haven't outed them, and they can rest assured that I won't.

However, I've always felt entirely free to send links to other people who might be interested in something, and to speculate, off-line, that x sounds like y, or that A really reminds me of B, or to say that I'm pretty sure that Pseudonym is Proper Name. In GoodK's case, once he identified himself as the stepson of the man who had sent out a letter that I too had received, I knew exactly who he was. But I still said nothing about his identity on line. I've been very careful not to reveal his identity (or anybody else's), and was surprised only within the past few days to learn that -- because of his "Mormon Gulag" activities -- essentially everybody here knows it.

You avoided my question. I didn't ask about a "unified, agreed-upon, set of "netiquette" rules. I asked if you were aware of the general idea. It was my impression that this was fairly well known and understood at ZLMB (and on every other board I've participated on)

Your defense seems a bit like a technicality to me. Surely you realized that by sending his stepfather the link, you were "outing" him to his real life family.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't expect we will have much of an exchange about this, but it seems like you are suggesting that posting the letter constituted him revealing his own identity. Ergo, there was nothing for you to reveal except the fact that he had posted the letter online. Am I following?

In a sense, that's true. I wasn't really concerned with GoodK's identity, as such. (And I didn't reveal it.) I was concerned that his stepfather be informed. And I may be misremembering on this, but it vaguely seems to me that his stepfather may already have known that GoodK was posting here. If that's true, of course, he might eventually have read GoodK's remark about him without any prompting from me. But, of course, I wouldn't have known that before I sent the link to the stepfather.

What sort of reaction did you expect from Eric's step-dad? Or even desire?

I didn't expect or desire any particular reaction.

As I said above (and as I've said from the start), had I been in GoodK's stepdad's position, I would have appreciated knowing what my son had said about me. It would have grieved me, without question. But I would have wanted to know. And I might have resented somebody who had known but hadn't told me. What would I have done with the information? Very probably nothing.

[_Trevor]

There is nothing inherently wrong with or bad about being young and/or immature, Trevor. It is what it is.

And I am sure you would find it flattering to see yourself publicly characterized as such. After all, there is nothing inherently wrong with it. It just is what it is. Uhuh.

I haven't played a bg part in either discussion. My participation here does not require that I participate in every discussion, even superficially.

Fascinating. Now I can see why you are participating in this discussion, because you aren't really contributing to it. No person is an island, excepting harmony.

My mistake. I thought you were directing your remarks to me.

Obviously, since you are an island, and none of this involves you, you are correct. It was my mistake to think you had any stake in this discussion, even superficially, and even though the issue of privacy has impacted you directly.

[_harmony]

In GoodK's case, once he identified himself as the stepson of the man who had sent out a letter that I too had received, I knew exactly who he was. But I still said nothing about his identity on line. I've been very careful not to reveal his identity (or anybody else's), and was surprised only within the past few days to learn that -- because of his "Mormon Gulag" activities -- essentially everybody here knows it.

I don't expect we will have much of an exchange about this, but it seems like you are suggesting that posting the letter constituted him revealing his own identity. Ergo, there was nothing for you to reveal except the fact that he had posted the letter online. Am I following?

Trevor, they received the same original email, the one GoodK posted on this board, a board which he knew Daniel frequented. He knew the email was sent to his stepdad's FARMS friends; he mentions that in his opening post of that thread. His expectation of privacy surely bottomed out, since he knew another recipient of that email also posted here regularly.

To expect there to be no response is ... well... naïve and immature. He tweaked the nose of another poster, a poster not known for his reticence in response to that type of tweaking, and he expected no response? I'm not defending the response that occurred, but I don't see how GoodK could have expected anything but something similiar to the response he got.

The world is filled with unintended consequences. Those of us with a modicum of maturity have learned through life's hard lessons to try to alleviate those unintended consequences, even in our posts on public internet boards. How GoodK could be surprised at the result of his post is incomprehensible.