How Often Does Tamar Get to Abuse Private Info

Does she get two freebies per quarter or what?

The answer to that question should be zero. Looks like she over stepped appropriate bounds with Skrain.

Unlimited.

The case made, is that anything put out on the internet is "fair game".

What's the limit on this?

New rules, on an as-needed basis.

Your password isn't long and garbled enough?
Your fault.

Don't have the most expensive, and constantly updated firewall?
Your fault.

Don't have 8 dead-bolts on your door?
Your fault.

Didn't sweep your house for bugs with an EMF sniffer?
Your fault.

Wore a tight dress in a bad neighborhood?
Your fault.

There are no victims in Tamarland.
Everyone must be destroyed, or at least humiliated.
Or, at least scared.
And it's all their fault.
They've aaaall got it coming.

Unless you're Tamar, and it's Ted.

Then, Ted must be destroyed.

She didn't reveal any personal information:

http://www.wordforge.net/showthread.php?p=2389320#post2389320

^It sounded like she knew what the daughter looks like, not just that he has a daughter.

How does it sound like she knows what the kid looks like? It's a shot in the dark.

Sounding like she knows what the kid looks like would go something like this:

"The kid is adorable though when wearing that red shirt while sitting on the pony. That's really cute."

Unlimited evil.
Forever.

But knowing something is not "abusing private information."

Revealing it is "abusing private information."

If she knows what the daughter looks like because she saw a photo somewhere that is not on Wordforge (and not in the Blue Room even here), and posted the photo, that would be "abusing private information."

Apostle is grasping at straws here.

Really small and thin straws.

If you were a cop, and you had a serial killer behind bars, and you walked by his cell, and he murmured "you got a cute looking daughter ", when before, he didn't know about her...wouldn't the hair stand up on your neck?

Eh?
Damned right.

Same thing.

Yeah, right, Tamar and a serial killer are the same thing.

Really convincing case you make there.

Not to mention that she did know about the daughter (so did the rest of us, who were paying attention) because he mentioned it himself.

In terms of creepiness, in that she can get you anywhere, anytime, and even turning off the computer won't make you safe?
Hells yeah.

I don't think it was abusing private information, I thought it was creepy and I said as much in the thread. I thought she had somehow seen the daughter, but apparently not.

Forever, ever?

Dude....you have a truly overblown idea of what I can do.

As loath as i am to respond to one of these moronic whine threads...

KNOWING (assuming the thesis that she does know) that the child is pretty and saying so is not "revealing personal information" unless she's the only pretty kid in the country.

Seriously... I pray you lot have got something more damning then saying his wife and daughter (whom, as Faceman points out HE revealed the existence of) reveals NOTHING of any substance.

Even Sherlock isn't going to track him down based on the revelation that there are attractive females in his home.

Well shit, since apparently Tasvir can't be trusted with "private information" that is RIGHT HERE ON THIS VERY BOARD and he is permabanned, I guess the only fair answer is to permaban her.

Oho.

You are comparing Tasvir dragging Blue Room info into the light with my making an oblique reference to a comment Skrain made in a public forum?

Really?

Weak sauce.

I'm just guessing, but I think the reason Tasvir is "permabanned" is because he straight up doesn't follow the rules. I mean, in a certain sense, what's the point of having rules if someone can break them constantly, get banned, and then get back in with a mock apology?

That and he is a worthless sack of shit. It's.... disappointing that Fox has such a hard-on for the guy. Even more so that its rep that's given him said hard-on.

Commenting on the appearance of a kid is more than a reference, it's making the implication that you have tracked down information on them.

How many kids aren't cute?

Besides, when is implying something that may or may not be true against the rules? Nothing new was revealed, nothing was linked to and none of you are even sure I've seen anything and now even that is an issue?

I made sure the troll was in the Red Room, the implication involved something in his private life he had previously mentioned in an open forum and I only did it to him when he was doing it to me, and I even trolled him with a compliment.

No one on this board is easier to find in RL than I am. I am hardly a threat to anyone. But if someone is going to fuck around with me and take shots at my husband, I'm trolling back if I have the hook to do it with. Skrain was an ass and if he forgot he posted his vitals in an open forum, then that's his problem.

When you imply that you've seen a person's kid, you are saying that you know their real life identity. As an admin, Tamar has easy access to this information. If Faceman or Skin or some other garden variety troll had made the claim, it would be much less of a big deal. Tamar needs to understand that she has certain responsibilities as a staff member and that she should adhere to a stricter standard regarding questions of user privacy.

A lot of kids are sticky, ugly, whiny assholes whose parents are the only ones who think they're cute.

Also worth noting, in similar incidents, others have been banned. Some may recall several years back when Storm and I were banned for implying that we had personal information about other posters.

Still not seeing why this is a big deal. If you got banned over implications, then it was a bullshit ban. No need to double down on a bad precedent, just b/c its there.

There are a few issues here:

1. Does this board have restrictions on discussion (implied or otherwise) of personal information?
2. Does an administrator have a believable access to personal information?

The answer to the first is yes, as demonstrated by prior bannings. We can debate whether the bannings were bullshit, but they happened just the same, and I'm not aware of any change in policy on this matter.

The answer to the second, is also yes. An administrator has access to an e-mail address and an IP address. With these two pieces of information, it's pretty easy to track somebody down.

What is disconcerting is that we have an administrator who often talks about the notion that she does in fact track people down, and uses this notion to troll board members. In doing so, she is overtly breaking the policy demonstrated by point # 1, and she is possibly making unethical use of the information available to her as illustrated by point # 2.

Does it do direct harm to Skrain? Unlikely. Does it harm the reputation of the board? Absolutely.

I don't think you broke any rules, just that it was a creepy comment and getting pretty borderline. Given the extra access to information we get as staff members I don't think it's unreasonable to say we should strive to stay well away from the line.