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

[_Scottie]

Maybe the sock-puppet issue deserves a separate discussion.

The one example that I think would be included under this new rule is if the poster normally posts with his/her real name, but also uses an anonymous sock-puppet. In that case, "outing" the sock-puppet would be the equivalent of sharing real-life information.

I don't think so.

For one thing, you could always deny that the sock-puppet is yours.

[_Eric]

So, you are of the opinion that since we can't address every single possible infraction of divulging in real life information, we shouldn't try and address some of them?

No, not exactly. I'm of the opinion that zero real-life infractions are being addressed, and all the dangers that have been cited: family, careers, etc, are completely unaffected.

Why is Trevor making such a big deal about his last name, which he freely disclosed to MAD and FAIR? Why does he care so much about the information being posted here? Does it have anything to do with his misuse of the word anti-mormon too? Why didn't he call for Will to be banned for doing exactly the same thing?! It's almost like he wants to be a victim of some imaginary crime that other Mormons have committed, and blame it on the evil anti-mormon critics and Doctor Scratch.

I'm all for privacy on the Internet, but get real folks. This is just silly. If this was a civil suit it would have been thrown out long ago.

[_marg]

I mean, what if I were to find out that our imaginary, longtime MDB-colleague "Jim Lampton" posted as DeathEater666 on FLAK over a year ago, and there he was saying things that completely contradict what he thinks now? Should I be at liberty to quote PMs from that board in which he advocated hunting down the family pets of GAs to me privately, when he basically stands for quite different values publicly now?

What he posted elsewhere as a sock-puppet should not be brought here, because people here might not have read that board, and the effect might be to discredit Jim Lampton ..when perhaps he never did post as DeathEater666. So only people who post here on this board as 2 different characters should be identified. And that person can always deny. Of course if it seems obvious that won't help much. So for example in your case, well I don't even think you admitted to Scratch but if you had and he posted you said to him you were Kish, you could deny. If it seems obvious to readers of the board you were kish that won't help you. But that information is not causing real life negative repercussions. Your fun is maybe being hampered.

Trevor: So we see Jim is really baiting me because I am showing pictures of cute GA pets, and saying basically that we should recognize the humanity of GAs based on the fact that they own and love cuddly pets. I have tried to get him to desist by pointing up his hypocrisy subtly and hinting at our former communications on this subject, but he continues to pretend like he gives a damn about the GAs and their pets. Well, DeathEater666 (Jim), I am sick of messing around with you. Surely you remember the PM you sent me last year on FLAK:

Man I hate those Mormons. They hurt people with impunity, and they go along enjoying their comfortable little lives. They don't even support the right of scientists to test animals so our children can have safer medicines! Bastards. I ought to show them. I should go pick up their pets and leave them with some labs, where they can do some good! Those stupid GAs certainly don't deserve cuddly pets while my kids don't have access to the safest medication.

Well bringing up another board sock-puppet shouldn't be brought here. Bringing up a private message from another board shouldn't be brought here. Mods don't have the means or time to investigate and what is essentially happening is that a person's board reputation whether or not they use their real name is being compromised and it may be unjustly, but few would have the means to investigate.

People do create established persona's which they value. The Dude for example has established one over many years. Someone shouldn't be able to potentially lie about what he did on another board. If is different if he admitted to being a sock-puppet on another board, but to accuse someone without evidence for all to see would be speculating and the only purpose would be to try to discredit the individual which may be unjust.

If anyone plays an alter ego sock puppet on this board, they take a risk of being called out and even if they revealed in private, I see no reason why that information should enjoy protection on this board. A discussion board becomes devalued if there are too many games being played on others at others expense. Sure they can play a game but it's only fair that others can call them out or expose them.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

What really ought to be done is if someone, like Mr. Eric mentioned, actually uses "in-real-life" information to affect someone else. That person should just be banned. Otherwise, all anyone is doing, might I add, is simply stifling ribald debate on this board. The idea that you would "punish" someone for online "shennanigans", as it were, is silly and neurotic.

However, if one's information is used to exact revenge "in-real-life", then an immediate and permanent ban should be executed. It is really a simple fix, in my humble opinion.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_marg]

Hello,

What really ought to be done is if someone, like Mr. Eric mentioned, actually uses "in-real-life" information to affect someone else. That person should just be banned. Otherwise, all anyone is doing, might I add, is simply stifling ribald debate on this board.

If someone posts real life information about another, then that could potentially negatively affect an individual in the future in ways we may not be currently aware of. So it's not a matter of determining whether or not harm has already been done but whether it could potentially cause harm.

The idea that you would "punish" someone for online "shennanigans", as it were, is silly and neurotic.

I don't think anyone is suggesting to punish those for "shenanigans" that is no one is suggesting to punish those who use sock-puppets. But posting information to tie someone to real life is not necessary.

However, if one's information is used to exact revenge "in-real-life", then an immediate and permanent ban should be executed. It is really a simple fix, in my humble opinion.

It's difficult to determine motive. It seems that if a rule is to not reveal information which would Identify an individual in real life that should be pretty straightforward and easy for most people to understand and comply with. This is really not going to be difficult nor a frequent problem. It will though give mods rules which can be applied against those who are intent on exposing posters with their real life identities when they may not wish that to be done.

[_Scottie]

No, not exactly. I'm of the opinion that zero real-life infractions are being addressed, and all the dangers that have been cited: family, careers, etc, are completely unaffected.

Why is Trevor making such a big deal about his last name, which he freely disclosed to MAD and FAIR? Why does he care so much about the information being posted here? Does it have anything to do with his misuse of the word anti-Mormon too? Why didn't he call for Will to be banned for doing exactly the same thing?! It's almost like he wants to be a victim of some imaginary crime that other Mormons have committed, and blame it on the evil anti-Mormon critics and Doctor Scratch.

I'm all for privacy on the Internet, but get real folks. This is just silly. If this was a civil suit it would have been thrown out long ago.

Perhaps.

The Trevor/Scratch incident was the catalyst that got us talking about this issue. It's possible that this particular instance may have been overblown, (which I'm not saying it was or wasn't), but it prompted us into action to ensure it doesn't happen again. If we did nothing and this happens again, the consequences may be much more severe for the victim. Are you willing to take that risk? I would think that you, of all people, should be championing the privacy of posters. I think you have had the most devastating of in real life consequences for your posts here.

As has been shown, Mormonism can have some very severe consequences for sympathizing with "the enemy". Many don't want their in real life information to be known. Since it is easy enough to figure out in real life information without it even being divulged, there needs to be some kind of protection.

[_Trevor]

Hey, guys-

I need to step out for a while, because I have other things to attend to. I am surprised pleasantly at how well this is going, and I think everyone, including people I often disagree with rather sharply, is raising lots of good points.

A couple of thoughts before I leave:

1) I would have preferred not to have several incidents of people taking retribution on me or threatening me with offboard and in real life information. But several instances in a short period was more than enough to end my patience with it.

2) I am not threatening litigation or anything of the sort for a very good reason: I agree that it does not rise to that level and the thought never crossed my mind. It is a little silly to say that I am blowing things out of proportion and then proceed into ridiculous hyperbole. I am handling things this way because I think it appropriate and meet for the problem at hand.

3) I would prefer that people not drag up ancient history in order to threaten me and others with it, i.e. the sock puppet thing. If I am using a sock puppet now, and someone accuses me of being that sock puppet now, fine, but to go back a year? There should be some limit. And to say that it is Mormons who like to dig into the past and hold it over people's heads is terribly ironic in the present context.

Anyway, no hard feelings from me, no grudges. I am surprised and grateful that the conversation has been so adult, and I am speaking of almost everyone's participation.

See you soon,

T

[_marg]

3) I would prefer that people not drag up ancient history in order to threaten me and others with it, i.e. the sock puppet thing. If I am using a sock puppet now, and someone accuses me of being that sock puppet now, fine, but to go back a year? There should be some limit. And to say that it is Mormons who like to dig into the past and hold it over people's heads is terribly ironic in the present context.

Ok past sock puppets should be left alone. Most people aren't interested in revealing sock-puppets if they have a good idea who it is and it was all light hearted fun.

[_Eric]



The Trevor/Scratch incident was the catalyst that got us talking about this issue. It's possible that this particular instance may have been overblown, (which I'm not saying it was or wasn't), but it prompted us into action to ensure it doesn't happen again. If we did nothing and this happens again, the consequences may be much more severe for the victim. Are you willing to take that risk? I would think that you, of all people, should be championing the privacy of posters. I think you have had the most devastating of in real life consequences for your posts here.

Take the risk of what? Information on the Internet being cross posted here? I really don't understand what happened that was so horrible and worthy of this much outrage. The information was deleted. That's been the policy every time I had my privacy rights violated on this website. Where was the five-year-three-tiered-plan when I was the 'victim'?

When in real life consequences are actual, and we're not just talking about embarrassing sock-puppets being discovered, I am all for personal privacy. Personal privacy does not involve unreasonable expectations, or arbitrary consequences. This problem has been resolved as far as I'm concerned, quite well, and the real discussion we should be having is why kishkumen has been criticising Doctor Scratch for so long.

Information posted on the MAD board is obviously going to be read by people on this board. To expect some sort of veil of privacy between the boards is damned ridiculous.

[_Scottie]

Take the risk of what? Information on the Internet being cross posted here? I really don't understand what happened that was so horrible and worthy of this much outrage. The information was deleted. That's been the policy every time I had my privacy rights violated on this website. Where was the five-year-three-tiered-plan when I was the 'victim'?

You are absolutely right that the outrage of what DCP did should have prompted this change LONG ago. I can't really say why it didn't back then, but it is now. The crimes against you were worlds worse than what happened here between Trevor/Scratch. We should have taken them more seriously back then. For myself, I apologize that I didn't. I'm sure many feel the same way.

When in real life consequences are actual, and we're not just talking about embarrassing sock-puppets being discovered, I am all for personal privacy.

As am I.

Information posted on the MAD board is obviously going to be read by people on this board. To expect some sort of veil of privacy between the boards is f*****g ridiculous.

It's not about us reading MAD, it's about who can find whose name where. Do you agree that a poster should be able to post on MAD and MDB without a prospective employer being able to find your posts on MDB if they don't want them found?

I know of at least one poster that posts here under a pseudonym, but uses his real name on MAD. Perhaps he has a reason for doing that. Perhaps he doesn't want a google search of his name to bring up this board. I think we should respect that.