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

[_Some Schmo]

Wow, I can't believe people are trying to use the slippery slope argument for such a cut and dry offense.

I mean, really... is it so hard to just admit that using RL information is not a good thing to do? Seriously? Is it so vital to your contributions to the board?

Fighting for it does not look favorably on your intentions, whether you intend to be malicious or not.

[_MCB]

We’re calling for banning as a possible response to one very particular behavior that has the potential to do real damage to one’s real life.....For the life of me, I can’t see how using stringent consequences to discourage the sharing of real-life information is censorship and bullying, but I understand that’s the way you see it.

Threats to disclose in real life sensitive information are bullying. No matter which side of the fence they come from. This is reprehensible, and should be censured.

Free and open debate should be used to reconcile differences. Bullying only sets people more solidly into position. Bullying is the way of the coward.

[_Scottie]

Okay, here is my proposal.

Real life information is defined as any information that can be used to identify a poster.

No poster shall divulge real life information about another poster unless that poster has already divulged the information on THIS board. As posters, it is part of your responsibility to protect your information and not post anything that you do not wish to be repeated.

An offense must be reported by the poster whose in real life information has been shared. If you believe that in real life information has been posted maliciously and you are not the subject in question, you may report it and a moderation call will be used to determine if it should be modified.

A suggested offense will be edited from the offending post, and any subsequent posts which refer to the original post as soon as a moderator is able to do so.

The moderation team will decide if the post was actually an infraction, of it is believed to be an innocent mistake.

If it is decided that it was a purposeful infraction, the following punishments will be used:
1st offense: Warning with no suspension.
2nd offense: 30 day suspension
3rd offense: 6 month suspension
4th offense: ban

This, of course, must be approved by Shades.

Any objections or clarifications?

[_beastie]

Okay, here is my proposal.

Real life information is defined as any information that can be used to identify a poster.

No poster shall divulge real life information about another poster unless that poster has already divulged the information on THIS board. As posters, it is part of your responsibility to protect your information and not post anything that you do not wish to be repeated.

An offense must be reported by the poster whose in real life information has been shared. If you believe that in real life information has been posted maliciously and you are not the subject in question, you may report it and a moderation call will be used to determine if it should be modified.

A suggested offense will be edited from the offending post, and any subsequent posts which refer to the original post as soon as a moderator is able to do so.

The moderation team will decide if the post was actually an infraction, of it is believed to be an innocent mistake.

If it is decided that it was a purposeful infraction, the following punishments will be used:
1st offense: Warning with no suspension.
2nd offense: 30 day suspension
3rd offense: 6 month suspension
4th offense: ban

This, of course, must be approved by Shades.

Any objections or clarifications?

Personally, I'd eliminate the "warning with no suspension" step. If the mods determine it was an infraction and not an innocent mistake, I think there is no need for a toothless warning. Just my opinion. I'd go straight to a 30 day suspension. It's not like anyone's livelihood or real life is going to be damaged by being suspended for 30 days, and it sends a stronger message.

[_MCB]

Agreed. The emotional distress or real-life consequences for the victim is not worth just a wrist-slap for the perp.

[_Some Schmo]

Personally, I'd eliminate the "warning with no suspension" step. If the mods determine it was an infraction and not an innocent mistake, I think there is no need for a toothless warning. Just my opinion. I'd go straight to a 30 day suspension. It's not like anyone's livelihood or real life is going to be damaged by being suspended for 30 days, and it sends a stronger message.

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.

[_Scottie]

Personally, I'd eliminate the "warning with no suspension" step. If the mods determine it was an infraction and not an innocent mistake, I think there is no need for a toothless warning. Just my opinion. I'd go straight to a 30 day suspension. It's not like anyone's livelihood or real life is going to be damaged by being suspended for 30 days, and it sends a stronger message.

The only hesitation I have with no warning is having too heavy a hand for those who may not know or who may have done it out of anger. Who here hasn't said something they regret when pushed.

If anything, I would say a 1 week suspension for 1st offense.

We'll let Shades make that call.

[_Jersey Girl]

Personally, I'd eliminate the "warning with no suspension" step. If the mods determine it was an infraction and not an innocent mistake, I think there is no need for a toothless warning. Just my opinion. I'd go straight to a 30 day suspension. It's not like anyone's livelihood or real life is going to be damaged by being suspended for 30 days, and it sends a stronger message.

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.

Hmmm....maybe change the warning to "you've got 24 hours to explain your bad self and if we're not satisfied with what you have to say or if you fail to respond in 24 hours (and I don't care if the dog ate your homework) we'll see you again in 30 days...or not."

[_Doctor Scratch]

So, the end result of this would be that posters should engage in a healthy amount of ass-kissing to any poster who has the reputation of using personal information in a punitive fashion.

No, I don't think so. I mean, DCP and rcrocket already both have reputations for doing that, I don't see anyone "ass-kissing" them.

And Professor-Trevor-the-Classicist-Who-Presented-on-JS-and-Performance-at-Sunstone (your new name on the board as far as I'm concerned): you have no case to claim that someone really did "violate" your privacy or expose you, since, as you've now admitted a couple of times, you had already made it well known who you are in real life. This is why you keep tossing in this caveat about how you don't want retroactive punishment---and let's face it, with these proposed rules, *all* punishment would wind up being retroactive. There is no way to stop people from using information that posters allow onto the boards. (I believe it was Euthypro [sp?] who pointed this out on the other thread.) People like Trevor and Tim are making a crappy argument that material that surfaces on, say, Times & Seaons, The Foyer, or MAD, should not be mentionable here, which is really a form of censorship. The "community" is not just this board, as you and Tim are implying. It extends into the FAIRblog and Wiki, to RfM, to the FARMS Review, and so on and so forth. Do you guys want to make it "illegal" to post stuff from those places, too? What about old ZLMB posts? Are those now off-limits, since they happened some years ago? Well, I wont allow myself to be bullied by types who are arguing for this type of censorship. I want to be protected from rules like this, even if I get embroiled in a spirited debate.

What the rule advocates here are really just arguing for are rules will force people to be nice, which in the end is a lame and naïvely idealistic (not to mention kind of fascist, albeit very TBM) argument.

You may have an argument if people were arguing for banning in response to name-calling and other insulting behavior, but we’re not. We’re calling for banning as a possible response to one very particular behavior that has the potential to do real damage to one’s real life.

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.

[_Darth J]

Okay, here is my proposal.

Real life information is defined as any information that can be used to identify a poster.

No poster shall divulge real life information about another poster unless that poster has already divulged the information on THIS board. As posters, it is part of your responsibility to protect your information and not post anything that you do not wish to be repeated.

An offense must be reported by the poster whose in real life information has been shared. If you believe that in real life information has been posted maliciously and you are not the subject in question, you may report it and a moderation call will be used to determine if it should be modified.

A suggested offense will be edited from the offending post, and any subsequent posts which refer to the original post as soon as a moderator is able to do so.

The moderation team will decide if the post was actually an infraction, of it is believed to be an innocent mistake.

If it is decided that it was a purposeful infraction, the following punishments will be used:
1st offense: Warning with no suspension.
2nd offense: 30 day suspension
3rd offense: 6 month suspension
4th offense: ban

This, of course, must be approved by Shades.

Any objections or clarifications?

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