ON THE UPCOMING RULING: The issues as I see them

[_Hermoine]

A post that simply says "Chap - you are a stupid and ridiculous person who is surely going to hell. Why don't you shut up?" or "Your kids must be really dumb if there is anything in genetic science" would clearly be a personal attack, and should be disallowed under the terms of that rule.

But it may always not be that simple. If I were to post here advocating the strictest sexual continence for gay people, but also to post as 'Chap' (Or 'Chappy', with the same vocabulary and mannerisms) on another board recounting with relish my liaisons with rent boys, it would be entirely proper to call attention to my inconsistency, even if that meant revealing information that might embarrass me profoundly. (Well, it wouldn't embarrass the real me, though it would certainly embarrass the cyber-me manifested on this board.)

OK. I understand that. But please explain to me how, in the situation between Scratch and I, this comes into play. He wasn't posting my participation on the spanking site to discredit me based on the subject matter, like in the example you posted. His post was made with the sheer intent of attack to shut me down.

THAT is the type of posting that I am against, and that, it sounds like, Kish is against too.

Maybe the problem is, we have been talking past each other here.

[_Nomomo]

1. We don't need a rule change. Even Liz/Yoda/Hermoine has said she doesn't want one. No rule changes were asked for when she threatened to out Scratch's in real life information on a previous occasion.

mmm......? (I've been out of the loop for a while)

[_Chap]

A post that simply says "Chap - you are a stupid and ridiculous person who is surely going to hell. Why don't you shut up?" or "Your kids must be really dumb if there is anything in genetic science" would clearly be a personal attack, and should be disallowed under the terms of that rule.

But it may always not be that simple. If I were to post here advocating the strictest sexual continence for gay people, but also to post as 'Chap' (Or 'Chappy', with the same vocabulary and mannerisms) on another board recounting with relish my liaisons with rent boys, it would be entirely proper to call attention to my inconsistency, even if that meant revealing information that might embarrass me profoundly. (Well, it wouldn't embarrass the real me, though it would certainly embarrass the cyber-me manifested on this board.)

OK. I understand that. But please explain to me how, in the situation between Scratch and I, this comes into play. He wasn't posting my participation on the spanking site to discredit me based on the subject matter, like in the example you posted. His post was made with the sheer intent of attack to shut me down.

THAT is the type of posting that I am against, and that, it sounds like, Kish is against too.

Maybe the problem is, we have been talking past each other here.

Good. It seems then that we are agreed that the simple fact of causing embarrassment to another poster, who still remains anonymous, with no real-life information being revealed, is not in itself a reason for censoring a post or imposing sanctions on a poster.

It seems to me that the problem you are talking about, where a poster might cross post embarrassing but irrelevant information from another board with no aim in mind other than to cause embarrassment, would appropriately be dealt with under the off topic rule.

If for instance you are talking to me about the church's tithing receipts, and I suddenly start cross posting stuff about bondage that you had posted on another site under the same screen name, simply in order to embarrass you and stop you posting, the proper remedy would be to report the post as off topic, and have it moved to that forum.

[_LDSToronto]

OK. I understand that. But please explain to me how, in the situation between Scratch and I, this comes into play. He wasn't posting my participation on the spanking site to discredit me based on the subject matter, like in the example you posted. His post was made with the sheer intent of attack to shut me down.

THAT is the type of posting that I am against, and that, it sounds like, Kish is against too.

Maybe the problem is, we have been talking past each other here.

You are thick as a brick.

Scratch did not post anything simply to embarrass you. Scratch posted what he posted because you had made a deal with him, similar to the deal you made with me (all of this is in the open now, based on your previous posts):

1. You asked that I (and Scratch) refrain from posting references to your writings because those references may put your custody battle in jeopardy

2. We complied.

3. You continued to post spanking writings under your user name.

It's really not that hard to see why Scratch would feel as though he had been taken advantage of.

H.

[_Nightingale]

1. Is the material from another site relevant to discussions here?

2. Is it fine to post material here from another site, for the purpose of embarrassing another poster (as opposed to adding to the discussion) especially if said material has seriously negative in real life repercussions (such as custody arrangements. as in this eg)?

I think it goes beyond being Old Testament in that case and shouldn't even be in Old Testament. But it seems you allow "personal attacks" here, as long as they are kept to the right forum. It all depends on what kind of board you want. I also think it matters that comments hurt another poster, although that is more difficult to moderate. Again, it's so subjective.

My comments are general. I don't know enough about the original situation. I hope it gets worked out.

[_palerobber]

His post was made with the sheer intent of attack to shut me down.

can you explain what you mean by "shut me down"?

do you mean stop you from ever posting again? or stop you posting on a certain subject? or what?

[_Chap]

1. Is the material from another site relevant to discussions here?

Cross-posting is specifically allowed in the rules of the board.

2. Is it fine to post material here from another site, for the purpose of embarrassing another poster (as opposed to adding to the discussion) especially if said material has seriously negative in real life repercussions (such as custody arrangements. as in this eg)?

We've discussed this already - see above. There are obviously circumstances where it is very relevant and proper to post material that embarrasses a poster who is doing something on another board that they strongly condemn here. Please recall that it is pretty easy to keep one's identities on different boards separate, so anybody who lays themselves open to cross-posting cannot blame anybody else for making that possible. And again, a poster who takes obvious precautions to maintain anonymity has nothing to fear in real life.

I think it goes beyond being Old Testament in that case and shouldn't even be in Old Testament. But it seems you allow "personal attacks" here, as long as they are kept to the right forum. It all depends on what kind of board you want. I also think it matters that comments hurt another poster, although that is more difficult to moderate. Again, it's so subjective.

Yup, it's subjective. And that is why pretty well everybody who has posted seems to agree that posters need to be responsible for protecting themselves.

by the way - I don't post in the forum that allows pointless personal attacks, because I prefer to discuss real issues instead.

[_Nightingale]

Thank you for your reply, Chap. I appreciate your opinion.

[_Hermoine]

His post was made with the sheer intent of attack to shut me down.

can you explain what you mean by "shut me down"?

do you mean stop you from ever posting again? or stop you posting on a certain subject? or what?

Embarrass me to the point that I would disappear.

[_Hermoine]

OK. I understand that. But please explain to me how, in the situation between Scratch and I, this comes into play. He wasn't posting my participation on the spanking site to discredit me based on the subject matter, like in the example you posted. His post was made with the sheer intent of attack to shut me down.

THAT is the type of posting that I am against, and that, it sounds like, Kish is against too.

Maybe the problem is, we have been talking past each other here.

You are thick as a brick.

You're an ass.

Scratch did not post anything simply to embarrass you. Scratch posted what he posted because you had made a deal with him, similar to the deal you made with me (all of this is in the open now, based on your previous posts):

1. You asked that I (and Scratch) refrain from posting references to your writings because those references may put your custody battle in jeopardy

2. We complied.

Um...no. He didn't comply. If he did, this whole situation would have never happened. He was pissed off because I dared to defend DCP on the thread where he posted Dan's taxes. And instead of arguing with me on point, he chose to bring up my activity on other websites. Then, he was pissed that the Mods edited his comments.

3. You continued to post spanking writings under your user name.

Actually, no. The stories I posted there were from several months ago. I had tried to remove them, but was blocked from being able to. After finally getting a hold of the Management Team there, I was able to get everything I had posted there deleted. Since you seem to know the site so well, please feel free to check it out for yourself.

It's really not that hard to see why Scratch would feel as though he had been taken advantage of.

H.

Yes, you and Scratch were so taken advantage of.

Imagine actually having to argue with someone on point as opposed to trying to humiliate them through personal attacks instead. Gee, isn't that what the Mopologists do?