Did Anyone Bother to Notice.....???

[_Kishkumen]

Unless Pahoran discussed his this aspect of his marital history here, then Scratch broke Universal Rule #7. It is as simple as that.

[_MsJack]

Pahoran has discussed his divorce at MDDB. I have no idea whether he has ever offered the same information here; I seem to recall the post I just linked to being discussed here by other participants, but I don't know if he was one of them.

The letter of Universal Rule #7 is that participants cannot discuss RL-information here even if the person in question has disclosed it elsewhere on the Internet. The spirit of the law is meant to protect people from having truly confidential information exposed. Most of us would assume that if a person divulges information at MDDB, then they are okay with it being known here, as many members of this community frequently read MDDB.

The reality is that the moderators are not omniscient. They can't look at a post and know for sure that the person has never volunteered the information here, or that s/he objects to having that information posted here. The only way the moderators can know that is if the target of the RL-information-violation files a ticket, or someone files a ticket on his/her behalf.

I assume no ticket was filed when Scratch mentioned Pahoran's divorce.

[_Chap]

Pahoran opines that it may have been an effective tactic for a moderator to set out to punish a breach of Universal Rule 7, not by applying normal moderatorial sanctions, but by breaching it herself.

Whether Pahoran is right or wrong in claiming that the tactic may have been effective, in the sense of causing discomfort to the person against whom it was directed, the central point remains: it was not a proper tactic to be employed by a moderator who wishes to continue to lay claim to the trust required to fulfill her role.

(Of course we now know her attack missed her intended target. But that is not the point.)

[_Kishkumen]

Pahoran opines that it may have been an effective tactic for a moderator to set out to punish a breach of Universal Rule 7, not by applying normal moderatorial sanctions, but by breaching it herself.

Well now, Chap, no one ever said that Pahoran had sound moral reasoning, except perhaps Pahoran.

[_LDSToronto]

This is what you originally said:

Did Pahoran publicise his divorce here?

This implies Pahoran had a divorce, but may or may not have publicly disclosed it here. This statement publicly discloses.

You have changed your original quote to this:

Did Pahoran publicise his divorce, if he ever had one, here?

This sentence says that Pahoran may or may not have had a divorce, and he may or may not have publicly disclosed. I'm sure, however, that you understand the difference, given your blah-blah-blah-ing about how I clearly don't read Englush gud.

But, jokes on you, dummy. You still disclosed. It still holds retroactively. As per the stemelbow ruling.

H.

PS. I'm immoral, not amoral. Get it right.

[_Chap]

Unless Pahoran discussed his this aspect of his marital history here, then Scratch broke Universal Rule #7. It is as simple as that.

If so, he should have been warned or sanctioned.

His breach did not authorize a further breach, certainly not a further breach by a mod whose role was to enforce the rules of the board.

[_Kishkumen]

His breach did not authorize a further breach, certainly not a further breach by a mod whose role was to enforce the rules of the board.

I never said it did. I think Liz was out of line.

What Liz did was almost exactly what Simon Belmont did to me. He placed information on this board that was intended to make it easy to figure out my identity.

I did not take that lightly, and I do not take this lightly.

So, should liz be suspended?

[_Chap]

Unless Pahoran discussed his this aspect of his marital history here, then Scratch broke Universal Rule #7. It is as simple as that.

If so, he should have been warned or sanctioned.

His breach did not authorize a further breach, certainly not a further breach by a mod whose role was to enforce the rules of the board.

I never said it did. I think Liz was out of line.

What Liz did was almost exactly what Simon Belmont did to me. He placed information on this board that was intended to make it easy to figure out my identity.

I did not take that lightly, and I do not take this lightly.

So, should liz be suspended?

I'm sorry if I gave the impression you thought that Liz's action was proper - I did not intend to do that.

[Guest]

What do you get when you mix a few Mormons, 8 attorneys, 6 Professors, and one guy with very handsome facial hair?


The last 2 pages of this bizarre thread!


Peace,
Ceeboo

Edited for my friend, chap!

[_Quasimodo]

I see road-weary wisdom and re-determination.

I can agree with "road weary" (so many miles). Wisdom is another matter. Thanks for your thoughts!