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

[Guest]

I have a hypothetical, which, before I set it out, I want people to understand that I am not advocating this. I am thinking out loud to help us as we work through these arguments:

We know that Glaxar likes to poke at Dr. Gunderson. Dr. Gunderson posts under his real name and as something of a public figure in the Mormon world. Glaxar notices that Dr. Gunderson is giving a lecture in Idaho on anti-Mormonism, and so Glaxar posts something about that here with lots of derogatory statements about Gunderson and his lecture.

Does this constitute an illicit revelation of in real life information?

By comparison, let's say that Benjamin Peck, MD, posts anti-Mormon comments here under the name BPeck. Peck has a LinkedIn account which he links to on another website on which he posts. Glaxar finds this out, and decides to have some fun with Ben by posting the information here. Peck lives in Utah and has many LDS clients, some of whom could find their way to this site and decide not only to quit seeing Ben as a physician, but to tell all of his LDS friends the same. Ben's practice is destroyed because most of his clientelle has vanished.

Is there anything wrong with Glaxar's actions? Is this something worth trying to prevent with a rule that has some bite attached?

[_Scottie]

Clarification: if we disclose something in chat but explain we don't want it on the board?

Good catch. Yes, I believe this should be added. Chat sessions do NOT count as "on the record". Posts do.

[_beastie]

I actually like the warning. You've got to eliminate the "I didn't know" excuse from newbies and people not around to observe this thread right now.

I'm assuming this will be clearly posted in the rules. Normally it's the responsibility of newbies to familiarize themselves with board rules.

I'm just basing my opinion from 26 years of working with kids. If the first consequence is basically toothless, they'll happily line up for it. Now, I know we're not "kids" on this board, but human nature is human nature.

Just my opinion. Not a hill worth dying on.

(edit on: Scottie, I could go for a one week suspension. My issue is that posting real life information required premeditation, so it isn't likely to be done in a moment of anger and immediately regretted.)

[_beastie]

How is it "very particular"? You yourself, Beastie, are guilty of using private or "in real life" information that could in some way be used to harm another poster. During the whole Moniker episode (or one of them, anyhow) you mentioned stuff about her that seemed *awfully* private. Should you be banned for having done that? You also pulled what I believe were private messages off ZLMB and posted them here. I'm not going to repeat what the messages said, but I'm pretty sure you know what I'm talking about.

I did not share personal, real life information about Moniker, and was actually one of her defenders. And I never pulled private messages off of ZLMB. Either prove these accusations or retract them.

[_Scottie]

I have a hypothetical, which, before I set it out, I want people to understand that I am not advocating this. I am thinking out loud to help us as we work through these arguments:

We know that Glaxar likes to poke at Dr. Gunderson. Dr. Gunderson posts under his real name and as something of a public figure in the Mormon world. Glaxar notices that Dr. Gunderson is giving a lecture in Idaho on anti-Mormonism, and so Glaxar posts something about that here with lots of derogatory statements about Gunderson and his lecture.

There should probably be some modification to allow for using the names of posters who go by their first and last names on other boards, even if they don't post here.

Derogatory statements are not revealing any in real life information, so those are not subject to this rule.

By comparison, let's say that Benjamin Peck, MD, posts anti-Mormon comments here under the name BPeck. Peck has a LinkedIn account which he uses on another website on which he posts. Glaxar finds this out, and decides to have some fun with Ben by posting the information here. Peck lives in Utah and has many LDS clients, some of whom could find their way to this site and decide not only to quit seeing Ben as a physician, but to tell all of his LDS friends the same. Ben's practice is destroyed because most of his clientelle has vanished.

Is there anything wrong with Glaxar's actions? Is this something worth trying to prevent with a rule that has some bite attached?

If Glaxar posts information which was not revealed on THIS web site, then, yes, he is subject to discipline.

Although I would certainly question the wisdom of bpeck for using any resemblance of his name and linking his linkedin profile on a board that is quite commonly referred to by this board if there were a possibility of his practice being destroyed. The blame does not fall solely on Glaxar here for the death of the business.

[_Trevor]

I liked a stiffer penalty on the first offense, but I won't push it.

[_Scottie]

I'm assuming this will be clearly posted in the rules. Normally it's the responsibility of newbies to familiarize themselves with board rules.

I'm just basing my opinion from 26 years of working with kids. If the first consequence is basically toothless, they'll happily line up for it. Now, I know we're not "kids" on this board, but human nature is human nature.

Just my opinion. Not a hill worth dying on.

(edit on: Scottie, I could go for a one week suspension. My issue is that posting real life information required premeditation, so it isn't likely to be done in a moment of anger and immediately regretted.)

I'm somewhat torn on this one, but I'm leaning more towards your suggestion.

First, I don't believe a newbie would even know any in real life information to spread in the first place.
Second, if a newbie is posting in real life information, that was probably their purpose from the beginning.
Third, if they can't be bothered to read the rules, that is their fault, not ours.

Of course, I'm talking like I have any say what-so-even in this decision. Shades is the final decision maker here.

[_Trevor]

Although I would certainly question the wisdom of bpeck for using any resemblance of his name and linking his linkedin profile on a board that is quite commonly referred to by this board if there were a possibility of his practice being destroyed. The blame does not fall solely on Glaxar here for the death of the business.

Precisely the reason I framed it in this way. Peck did not act wisely. It was fairly easy to get the information, and so we might say, "you were a dumbass." But that does not mean, imho, that we want Glaxar to post this information or threaten to do so.

[_Jersey Girl]

Scratch

You also pulled what I believe were private messages off ZLMB and posted them here. I'm not going to repeat what the messages said, but I'm pretty sure you know what I'm talking about.

Are you sure that wasn't me when discussing the Ztroll events?

[_beastie]

Scratch

You also pulled what I believe were private messages off ZLMB and posted them here. I'm not going to repeat what the messages said, but I'm pretty sure you know what I'm talking about.

Are you sure that wasn't me when discussing the Ztroll events?

I'm genuinely curious about this. I don't think I even saved any Z PMs. And I can't think of what in the world I would have said about Moniker to be interpreted as "real life personal information." As I said, I was one of her defenders.