DiscussMormonism.com

I think we need some clarification on the intent of the board rules. I thought I'd start this thread to see what you and others think.

On another thread, it has been noted that GoodK is using an avatar of a poster and the posters wife that doesn't appear on this board. Well, it's crock. Crock stated on the thread in question that the photo appears on his face book only.

I don't see anything in the board rules that prohibits snatching something from elsewhere and posting it on the board, as in personal photographs of posters/spouse/family.

a while back, you pulled an image of LoaP. I (as a mod back then) pulled the same image. I also know of instances where images of others have been deleted.

The thing is, we don't have a policy that I think covers this.

So, is the using of a photo pulled from someone's blog or whatever, kosher or not kosher? What about blog entries? And how would that impact posting entries from SHIELDS?

Will you figure this out and get back to us?

What does the community think about it?

I think it's at least bad form. Maybe we should hash this out.

.

In all of the forums I have hosted and been a part of, there are broad-based Internet rules of decorum that you just don't violate.

1. Don't post personal information about someone else on the forum without that person's permission.

2. Never involve poster's family (spouse, children, in particular) in any type of board dispute. The in real life world and the Internet world should remain separate in that sense.

3. Don't post a board member's photo without permission, and especially, don't post a picture of a board member's family without permission.

In any message board I have been associated with where anonymity is a concern, heeding the above actions have been universal rules of good form.

Let me also add here that I realize these universal rules were stepped on in GoodK's case. I strongly disagreed with Dan's decision to inform GoodK's stepdad about the thread he started here, and told him so.

Bob actually ultimately did more to pinpoint Eric's identity by indicating that he was definitely a male poster.

However, it is also on record in previous threads here that Eric publicly forgave Bob for this indiscretion. He also later went ahead and made the decision to post his own real name, as well as photos of himself.

But---Simply because GoodK's rights were unfairly stomped on, and dealt with roughly a year ago....Does that give GoodK free reign to unfairly violate someone else?

And, frankly, as far as I'm concerned, he can feud all he wants with Bob....poster to poster. It's dragging Bob's family into it that I object to. Bob's wife is not an active poster here, and has not given her permission for her image to be posted here. The same goes for Bob's children.

This is where I believe the line should be drawn.

liz3564 wrote: 1. Don't post personal information about someone else on the forum without that person's permission.

2. Never involve poster's family (spouse, children, in particular) in any type of board dispute. The in real life world and the Internet world should remain separate in that sense.

3. Don't post a board member's photo without permission, and especially, don't post a picture of a board member's family without permission.

Liz, perhaps this additional rule might be in order:

4. When posting any picture of Dr. Peterson, unless dressed as Carmen Miranda, it would be wise to assign a ficticious name if any caption is used. Furthermore, if reference is made to any Church Committee acronym, it would be best to randomly assign substitute letters.

Hope this helps you in establishing a fair and equitable policy.

your friend,

Moksha

liz3564 wrote:Let me also add here that I realize these universal rules were stepped on in GoodK's case. I strongly disagreed with Dan's decision to inform GoodK's stepdad about the thread he started here, and told him so.

For the record, I don't believe that drawing someone's attention to a public internet posting -- and, in this case, to an internet posting about that very person -- violates any rule of either ethics or internet decorum.

I realize that everybody here -- with possibly one exception -- disagrees with me on this point, and that disagreement has been strongly and repeatedly expressed. But I still don't believe that drawing someone's attention to a public internet posting violates any rule of either ethics or internet decorum.

I don't think we need any more rules. And for the record, Facebook isn't private. They can ban users who violate their terms, but they are powerless to stop anyone taking personal information from Facebook. I deleted my account months ago, and gave my reasons Here.

It might not be in "good taste", but we've all been subjected to more or less here and on the Internet, especially between warring parties. Bob has also spoken out unapologetically about anonymity, and "anonymous cowards".

The mods have the power to delete the photo if they wished. Or at least shades has the power. If Goodk were an apologist, his butt would get a severe kicking from the posters on this forum. But...it seems that he gets a free pass.

why me wrote:The mods have the power to delete the photo if they wished. Or at least shades has the power. If Goodk were an apologist, his butt would get a severe kicking from the posters on this forum. But...it seems that he gets a free pass.

You're full of it!!!

It's hard for me to feel sorry for Bob. He interminably harps on the evils of anonymity. He is not anonymous, by choice, and so any information available publicly is there for the taking (or posting).

If one chooses not to post anonymously, then one must accept the consequences of that choice. It's part of not being a coward.

KA