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

[_beastie]

Did that happen because the right or enough rules weren't in place? No. Did I threaten to deprive MormonDiscussions.com of my presence (as if it was something to be ransomed) if rules and punishments weren't created? No. Can this website protect people's real lives from menacing Mormons who want to harm ex-Mormons? No.

This is all way overblow. I officially register my dissent and intention to complain about any ridiculous rule implementation by the new Politburo. Sorry. 

I want to clarify one thing. My statement that I would not be comfortable participating here without more stringent attempts to protect identities was not meant as "threat", and I don't think that Trevor's was, either. It was simply a statement of fact. It is recognition of the fact that the current system of simply deleting the information did not seem to provide enough incentive to refrain from the behavior to begin with.

Part of my interest is sympathy for others and a desire to protect their situations, but part of it is quite selfish. I don't live in a community dominated by LDS, but I do live in a community dominated by religious belief in general. In fact, religious belief is always assumed and protected. An "atheist" would be viewed with suspicion and, for some people, fear. My job is a position of trust in the community, and I am quite certain that if it were widely known that I'm an ATHEIST, there would be people who would no longer be comfortable with me in that position of trust. Moreover, I do anticipate a job change in the somewhat near future, and I am very cognizant of the fact that more and more employers do searches on potential employees. I simply am not comfortable participating on a board where it is possible that someone, in a snit, would post information that they ferreted out about me. And I have zero doubt that it is very possible that some person who wishes me harm due to anger over my position on the church would use any information so posted to contact someone else, as was done with you. I have zero doubt because it happened to me before. This is just not a risk I'm willing to take.

I was always aware of the fact that Shades and this community in general might not agree with me on how serious this issue is. Like Trevor, I didn't bring this up to "force" the board to accept more stringent measures because if they didn't I was "threatening" to leave. I was ready and willing to accept that no change would be made. I was simply stating a fact: without some change, participating on the board would no longer be worth the perceived risk for me. I stated this openly to emphasize how serious I think this is.

In fact, I think the board would function fine without me, Trevor, or the others who would similarly exit. But apparently it appears that many other posters agree with us on this issue. In other words, I wasn't trying to say "Do what I want or I'm leaving in a snit." Rather I was trying to say "I need to know if I can feel comfortable continuing posting here or not."

I think this issue is clear enough that no one need fear some slippery slope of MADdism. And certainly this measure doesn't prohibit anyone's free speech.

[_MCB]

If anything, it will encourage free speech, because people will not fear personal exposure as retaliation for presenting their own feelings, experiences, and information.

As an example:
Early in my exploration, I entered the MAD board. I experienced extreme harassment form board members. One day I was in the computer lab at the library. There were plenty of seats available. Two missionaries came in, and sat on either side of me. They did not sit down gently. They plunked down in unison. I had a panic attack, left, and complained to the librarian. Now, I don't know if this intimidation came from within the local LDS community, or whether it had something to do with my participation on the MAD board. All I know was that it worked for a while, but eventually only solidified my resolve to fight back.

[Guest]

Hi marg,

Edit: It just dawned on me this wouldn't prevent someone posting off the board that "Joe blow" posts here as Joe..for example.

Yes. My point is that the real threat to people's careers, family, etc. is not the use of someone's last name or re-posting of publicly posted pictures, it's what is done in real life with the information. I would have much rather been outed by name on this board by Daniel Peterson if it meant he didn't involve my uninterested family the way he did off the message board.

beastie seems to be advocating something to guard against this, and I would definitely support that as well. Obviously, there is not perfect system for protection of participants of the board, and I think there is a point at which the level of rule-making and moderation becomes onerous. Everyone will define that point differently.

This is my standard:

1) Will the rule encourage or discourage quality discussion?

2) Will reasonable, intelligent, and well-meaning people find this board to be the kind of place they want to hang out and discuss stuff?

3) Will enforcement of the rule be feasible, without creating an inordinate burden for moderators?

4) Can we expect the rule to be enforced at all? Or is it dead letter before it is even enacted?

I am sure others here can think of other considerations. These are the ones that readily come to my mind.

One last bit about the protection of identity. At one point, I took to heart guilt being directed at me and others in such a way that I revealed too much personal information online. I think Dr. Scratch (not to excuse him) is absolutely right that it was stupid for me, given other things I had done, to post under my in real life first name. In my case, it probably would have been better to reveal privately certain things to certain people, and refrain from sharing more than the bare minimum of information publicly online.

Still, I think that, unless someone goes to an incredible amount of effort, someone will be able to pick out who one is. I was amazed that certain people here picked up on my sock-puppet right away, while others claim that they never would have even suspected. So there is no perfect protection. We are all at risk. But a certain minimal sense of security, even if it is somewhat illusory, is better, I think, for facilitating what we want to do here, than allowing something that is effectively a free-for-all.

With no sense of safety, I think people will be discouraged from posting here. I may hate ttribe's guts (don't worry, ttribe, I actually like you), but do I want to manhandle him so aggressively that he says, "to hell with it," and leaves? How many people might not want to risk coming over here because they know that their image may be posted in a thread? Is the point here to "win" by any means, but by winning lose the board? I think this is a good way of defining taking the "nuclear option."

I have run up against the problem enough lately to consider leaving, but not because I want to punish the board or run to MA&D and say, "boy, you guys were sure right about Shady Acres." I am not playing a bizarre game here. Yeah, last year you might have accused me of playing a bizarre games of some kind, and it would have stuck (deservedly).

To this day I do not like MA&D, even though I give them a great deal of credit for having made improvements recently. I really, really like Shades, and I think this board has more going for it in conceptual and structural terms than just about any other LDS-subject-oriented discussion board online. And, despite what some of you might think, I would rather be slapped in the face by Doctor Scratch than have Pahoran hound me relentlessly. I prefer my friend Jack getting pissed with me over being judged publicly by the not-infrequently self-righteous online persona of Scott Lloyd.

The myth about me being an LDS apologist who is gaming to destroy MDB, which has not been explicitly laid out, but has sure been suggested enough, is simply idiotic. I love MDB, and if the majority of people find this course of action to be too deleterious to the board to undertake, I would rather leave on good terms than stick around for a heap of smoldering resentment.

[_Trevor]

In fact, I think the board would function fine without me, Trevor, or the others who would similarly exit. But apparently it appears that many other posters agree with us on this issue. In other words, I wasn't trying to say "Do what I want or I'm leaving in a snit." Rather I was trying to say "I need to know if I can feel comfortable continuing posting here or not."

Let me add that I have left this board for months at a time, and have found that it functioned quite well in my absence. When I returned, it was still here, and I was able to rejoin the conversation. I am flattered that Eric believes that I am valuable enough to this board to hold my departure over the head of Dr. Shades (who, by my reckoning, would sooner tell me to take a flying leap and might even help me take it than give in to BS threats). Dude, get real. I know you think I have a big ego, but really!?!? At least give Shades more credit than that if you find me undeserving.

[_marg]

My initial reaction Shades is that I'm not in total agreement. I think the main priority is looking at moral obligation of parties. I think any information which could have negative repercussions in someone's real life shouldn't be on the board, because the cost may be high to that individual and a message board shouldn't be responsible for causing harm unnecessarily to anyone's life, nor do moderators have the means and time to investigate, nor should they.

But I'm not sold on the "behind the scenes" information should always receive protection. I think this might be best left to a judgment call that takes into consideration all parties who might be affected. I don't see any moral obligation that sock puppets should be protected, nor do I think that it's a simple matter that behind the scenes information is off limits if there are people conspiring behind the scenes in an attempt to antagonize or destroy a person's established board name. So if someone is trying to expose deceitful practices and to reveal it has a slim chance of causing harm to real lives, I think it's possible that the moral obligation to protect just because it's behind the scenes isn't necessarily justified.

I don't see a problem with anyone revealing a sock-puppet. But I do think quoting p.m.'s not appropriate because they could be taken out of context and misrepresent someone's intent. So I probably have not thought this out thoroughly.

[_Scottie]

This is all way overblow. I officially register my dissent and intention to complain about any ridiculous rule implementation by the new Politburo. Sorry. 

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?

[_Scottie]

I'm assuming that revealing a sock puppet is different than revealing in real life information?

After all, the sock puppet can always post that they are not the same person.

[_beastie]

Yeah, I tend to agree that sock-puppetry is a different issue. I guess the one complication could be if someone posts normally with their real name, and then posts as a sock puppet, so revealing the sock puppet could be revealing real life information?

I don't know. That one is a bit murky. I think that the real life information is more clear.

But I do believe something needs to be added that using board information to contact real life people merits banning. I also would agree this merits the most severe punishment of all.

[_Trevor]

I don't see a problem with anyone revealing a sock-puppet. But I do think quoting p.m.'s not appropriate because they could be taken out of context and misrepresent someone's intent. So I probably have not thought this out thoroughly.

Marg, you have said a lot of sensible things on this thread, and I appreciate them. I would like to pose this situation to you, however, and ask for some clarification. What about a sock-puppet from the past, which no longer fairly represents what one thinks today?

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?

Here's my sample post:

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.

Silly, I know, but I am interested to know whether you think this would be OK? I can think of arguments on both sides, and it may not help that it is kind of a silly example, but still... I want to know what you think.

Maybe this just is an unrelated issue, but since it bears a passing resemblance to the intimidation I was subjected to recently, I would like people's thoughts.

[_harmony]

I'm assuming that revealing a sock puppet is different than revealing in real life information?

After all, the sock puppet can always post that they are not the same person.

The Shadow knows. Although in my case, the harmony Shadow isn't about to reveal what she knows.

For the record, I agree with Shades.