BR threads used for trolling

I hit "report," but since I'm on Tapatalk, who knows what happened.

http://www.wordforge.net/index.php?posts/2573844

These posts (Ten Lubak and ed629) strike me as much too close to the line with references to BR threads. Yes, they're nonspecific, but I think they violate the spirit of the Blue Room. It's one thing to make oblique references innocently in a friendly conversation, but those references were obviously intended to needle Castle and Dayton.

Not my call, since I'm just the Twitter and Analytics monkey, but if it were my area, I'd want to slap it down.

I'd welcome some discussion of this. In my opinion, their statements boil down to "these guys are losers." But maybe there is more in it than that. Thoughts from others?

I agree with gul. It's trolling, but since there aren't specific details, I don't really see a problem with it.

Think about it this way: If they'd written, "Pattern your life like Aenea's Blue Room thread and you'll have nothing but happiness", would that be violating the spirit of the Blue Room?

Agreed with @gul and @shootER, the references aren't anything more than "don't do what Donny Don't does" posts. Cheap shots? Yeah, but they're not pulling any Blue Room information. It would be different, I think, if one of them were to say "Don't do what Dayton does, like in his diary where he said..." and then gave out some kind of detail from a BR post, you could smack them down, but since it's a very vague reference, without any content revealed, it's in the clear.

I find the evidence unconvincing, but possibly there is an interpretation I am missing. Those who feel there is a violation, please speak up and make your case.

In the strictest possible interpretation, even saying that someone HAS a Blue Room thread can be viewed as sharing Blue Room information.

Now, damn near everybody has done that at one time or another, and it's hard to imagine trying to police that every single time. Because that would get pretty ridiculous. When it's being used wholly to abuse someone... well, it's a dick move at the least. Where the line lies between a dick move and an actual violation, I don't know.

The whole point of the Blue Room is a safe place to post personal and intimate things and to avoid being teased, taunted and made fun of while sharing.

Taunting people with references to their Blue Room information specifically violates the spirit and point of The Blue Room.

How is someone in the Red Room going "Hey...you are a stupid fucking loser and your Blue Room thread proves it!" any different than someone just calling them a loser in the BR thread? It certainly makes the Blue Room no longer a safe place where someone is protected from being trolled because of what they post there.

The example of "pattern your life after Aenea's Blue Room thread" is different because there is no abuse, taunting, insults or trolling there and no actual information shared. It would be fine.

Intent and content are key.

Incidentally, the board rules and the "welcome to the Blue Room" thread are a bit different. This is from the thread:

Obviously on the scale of abuses, a reference to a thread, even in the context of a jab, isn't as bad as hauling out specifics from somebody's life and trolling them based on those. But it IS using the Blue Room for abusive purposes.

The purpose of the rule, I assume, is to foster a sense of community by making the Blue Room feel like a safe space. The references in that thread don't damage that as MUCH as some other actions might, but they do damage it.

Thanks for articulating your issue. I now see what you're getting at.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

Any suggestions on what if anything should be done?

I think it would quickly become a sticky wicket really fast. This is Wordforge. If there's a gray area to exploit, it will be exploited, and heavily.

There's no "actual information" shared in the posts in question.

Not sure what you're saying, John. do you mean that letting such comments slide will lead to more of such comments? or do you mean that an attempt to draw a more firm demarcation will lead people to test how firm it really is?

Your second statement. I like rules to be clear and concise to match actions that are clear and concise. Share personal information in the Blue Room? That's a clear violation of the rules. Talk about someone having a Blue Room thread without revealing any information? That's way too vague to set anything down upon, and opens the rule up to lots of abuse.

Consider how often Dayton's diary thread is mentioned in the Red Room. How often do you hear people reference it? Imagine getting a notification for each one of those. So we look each one over, and find that no information was revealed, and let it slide. This will bring about calls of uneven/unfair moderation, but this time there will be just a shred of validity to each accusation, so we'll have to enforce an already squishy rule evenly, and by doing so, we'll have to tag anyone who says anything about the Blue Room in the Red Room, and we'll have to follow up on the (guaranteed) dozens of notifications of RR members looking to get a political or ideological opponent in trouble. To lay down a rule against even mentioning that someone may have a Blue Room thread in the Red Room is just a clusterfuck waiting to happen. I know the intention behind such a rule is a good one, but the end result may cause more trouble than it's worth. Just my two bits.

Agreed.

Just mentioning someone has a Blue Room thread isn't an issue.

Making abusive and insulting remarks about what is posted there is. Even if they don't repeat what was written, mocking someone for their Blue Room content in the Red Room undermines the entire intent of the Blue Room...which is a safe place to share.

I see what you're saying but I disagree.

@John -- what you're talking about is definitely the most Internet Lawyer-proof. And, believe me, I'm not insensitive to that, having spent time modding a board way the hell more lawyer-y than this one.

But hasn't Wordforge generally operated on a principle of "apply common sense and tell the Internet lawyers to go fuck themselves"?

I see three options:

1. What most people seem to be leaning toward -- mention of BR threads being OK in an any context, as long as specific details aren't discussed. Pretty much Internet Lawyer-proof.

2. Mentions of the Blue Room without specifics not forbidden, but also not allowed to be used for trolling. My general inclination, and I get the impression Tamar's as well. Leaves lots of gray areas for Internet Lawyers to tie everyone up in knots, and thus kind of a pain in the ass, but I would argue closest to the spirit in which the Blue Room is intended.

3. Absolutely no mentions of any kind, in any context, by anyone. Totally Internet Lawyer-proof, but also kind of stupid, and I don't see anyone supporting it.

Is this @tafkats volunteering to make BR enforcement his baby?

I'm not sure how somebody dealing with just one particular rule across all forums would work, but if there's something that you guys want done but don't have the manpower to handle, I'm willing to help.

Does that mean that you like the idea but just don't have the time to deal with doing it, or was that more of a rhetorical question?

It means that if we are going to create new protections on the BR, people are going to push the limits just b/c so we'll need someone taking care of it.

Anyone else have comments on if this should be against the rules?

I'm not convinced we should do anything regarding statements that a Blue Room thread exists. Info from the thread that isn't also elsewhere, yes, that is a violation. Mention of a thread? Not worth the can of worms, and I don't see that it does any actual harm to the targeted poster anyway.

The hardest person to keep track of here is going to be Dayton.

Figuring out what info of his has only been mentioned in the Blue Room is going to be a chore.

Sadly, in Dayton's case, my default assumption is that he's spilled the beans himself in the RR at some point.

Done.