New Idea on the Privacy Rule and 14thDoc Brouhaha

Just had a flash of inspiration. Try this: first names don't really tell you much, especially if they're really common ones like "Mike" or "Ray" or "Steve".

Suppose I say that first names are no longer considered private info? Bring back Whistler, and bring back Garamet since she was banned for using Whistler's first name? Think that'd settle things down some?

Disagree. And leave the avatars - 14thDoc was kind enough to leave a rep comment for Zombie telling him he was pointing everyone right at his first name. Personally, I'd call that a reveal. Based on that, whether or not to unban Jamey is up to you.

Whoa! Got a link to the post?

Post 40 of the Help Desk clusterfuck. You may want to warn Zombie for that; I think I did last time when he connected the dots and made it quite public what 14thDoc was doing with Kirk's first name.

This one - oh yeah.

Okay, I've had some time to think.

Here's what I propose:

1- First names are no longer considered "private" information. Or perhaps we just don't treat it the same as, say, posting someone's phone number or street address or full name. Basically issue a "knock it off" and edit it out, assuming the person named cares.

2- New private info rule will be "Don't be loose with other people's personal information. If you use such info on Wordforge, it's entirely the board owner's discretion as to what, if anything, happens to you. Want to stay out of the gray area, don't make use of anyone else's personal info. If you can't resist, don't cry if something unpleasant happens to you."

3- Whistler and Garamet are unbanned.

1. I disagree.

2. Works for me.

3. Yeah, although make it a few days time out.

1. I'm of two minds about making first names OK. On one hand, it's another 'piece of the puzzle' that could enable someone malicious to do some damage, but on the other hand, there are very few first names unique enough to be at all identifying, even with additional 'evidence'. There's a reason why I'm comfortable posting under 'Kyle', after all. What bugs me about it is that it A: takes away something the poster should have control of, B: means a ton of moderating on our part, because idiots will insist on using the first names of people that they know it bothers, and C: it reeks of "OK we changed the rules so that it isn't a problem, let's all be a big happy family again!"

2. Something about this bothers me, but I can't put my finger on it. I feel like it gives them too much wiggle room and a way to legitimately compare offense-punishment pairings. This is my feeling on it: "Know someone's personal information? If you use it in any way on Wordforge, it's up to the board owner what, if anything, happens to you. Period. Until that person reveals it, or causes it to be revealed, it's off limits."

And I think that last clause is very important. Because while I feel very strongly that Whistler's sig was posting someone's private information and in flagrant violation of Rule 5, I also feel like 14D has brought all the rest of the fallout, including the 'reveal' of his name, on himself because of his impatience. Whistler posted his private information. 14D tracked it around. That doesn't make what Whistler did any less wrong according to the rules, but it also doesn't mean his name should still be protected.

3. On a probationary level, agreed. And I don't mean a "Do it again and you'll be in SERIOUS trouble this time, OK?" sort of way, I mean in a "in addition, a loss of certain posting privileges" sort of way. I think far too many people do it, knowing that if they promise extra-hard that they're sorry and won't do it again, that it'll be like it never happened. We've done probations before. I think they're more effective than just opening the jail door.

My opinion should be well known by now.

People should be responsible for their own information. These rules, that gets people banned over information anyone can find with a Google search are ridiculous.

I'll enforce whatever is decided, of course.

Totally against the revelation of even a part of a person's real name. It shouldn't happen plain and simple unless they consent.

As for Tamar's "you can find it easily on the internet" crap, this is not the case for many members and therefore we should not take it upon ourselves or condone any attempt to invade their privacy to any extent. End of.

Any remedy for those who realize they were irresponsible with their info? It's not like you can opt out of a Google search.

Usually, you can remove said information from the original site you posted it on. The searches are upgraded pretty quickly these days. I've done that myself on several occasions.

I don't know...I certainly don't have all the answers...however, I think banning people over generic pictures just because someone claims it's their personal information is going too far the other way.

Don't post people's names, addresses and personal stuff..that at least makes sense....don't post manta rays because we have a poster here named Ray does not...eventually, any picture would offend someone and there is no way to tell who is telling the truth and who is lying about their real name just to get someone in trouble.

I'm changing the FAQ to reflect the new privacy rule. Sometime this weekend I will un-ban Whistler and Garamet.

Oh, and Cass emailed me about being let back in. Thoughts?

Are you really going to stick to this generic picture nonsense, because it is seriously whacked.

As for Cass...*sigh* I want her back but she refuses to control herself at all it seems. She has done this stuff over and over..including big fuck yous to the staff when they try to make her dial back. How will you handle the terms of her coming back?

Also,In her case it was willful, deliberate and planned out vindictive revelation of a poster's name all over the place to which she admitted to and everyone knows it. In a way, letting her back would undermine any credibility to the notion that the privacy rule is extremely serious. It will certainly send a mixed message give the egregiousness of her particular violations.

I just think those things are something you should be aware of, and proceed carefully with them in mind when you make your decision.

Asking for opinions does not mean I'm holding the door open for her. I'm strongly leaning towards "hell no" but I want a couple more thoughts on it first.

I don't trust her not to run amok.

And I already posted the revised privacy rule. Made it just like written a few posts up.

Did you miss the part where I said I was unbanning Whistler and Garamet?

I largely agree, but Cass is a tragic personality. He desperately wants to be involved because his time on other boards is not as meaningful. I say allow him back, but the minute he even gives a sniff of taking the piss the ban hammer falls. In other words its a condition return and the conditions mean that he follows a tighter line the the regular board members.

So basically you've ignored the opinions you've requested and gotten and done whatever the fuck you think is best?

This is a baaaaaaad moved IMO.

That was the condition last time, Chup. And she pissed all over it. So I'm not terribly disposed to saying, in essence, "all right, but this time we really, really mean it!"

No, I've considered the opinions I've been given, both by you guys and the board at large, and thought about it a lot. See, this is the thing with rules and decisions - no matter which way things fall, someone is pissed.

Fair enough.

All the more reason not to be reactionary and change things.

Reactionary? I've made a modest change to the privacy rule and I'm gonna let two banned members back in. That's reactionary?

So even if somebody never shared their first name on Wordforge another member can (regardless of means) share that person's name? Not good. Cuz let's be honest, you can find out anything about anyone with a bit of effort, so effectively everyone will be on a mandatory first name basis. "Hi welcome to Wordforge here's the member list, the first column is user names and the second is real names. Feel free to refer to members by any variation of their user name or real name.... "

Though we'd probably just end up dumping user names altogether.

I agree, sounds like a fine policy.

As a stated rule? Of course not. But to say it's not possible to troll somebody with images is just as silly. Cases like this are where discretion comes into play.

True of every privacy violation and I've said as much many times over.

First names are gonna stay "private" unless the poster him/herself reveals it. Better safe than sorry on that score, I think.

Trolling is not a bannable offense.

The spirit of the personal information rule has always been revelation...giving the board someone's name when they haven't revealed it themselves. It is what it was created for and meant to be.

Now look what happened here. Almost no one on this board knew Doc's name. A handful, maybe. Jamey does his sig and trolls Doc. He even took it down pretty quickly. There was no revelation about what it meant until Doc started a manhunt and made sure there was one. Now most everyone knows his name....and it wasn't because of Jamey aside from being a catalyst.

In my opinion, if the picture itself doesn't reveal anything what should be done is a warning and not a ban. The rule always had a clause about punishment fitting the level of damage....damage meaning how much personal info was given out.

Maybe it's just me, but it just seems excessive to ban when it isn't a direct and blatant revelation.

I don't mind rewording my statement for clarity:

As a stated rule? Of course not. But to say it's not possible to reveal personal info with images is just as silly. Cases like this are where discretion comes into play.

Even if this is completely true it does not change a thing.

And what would that warning be based upon?

I would say no to unbanning Cass.

What I would suggest is saying that her account will not be unbanned, but if she wants to re-register it would be permitted. However the slightest sign of resuming the same behavior will result in another boot out the door.

Not sure if even that is worth the drama though to be honest, after what Cass did last time admitting she was trying to stir up trouble I don't feel like dealing with her.

I'm not quite clear how this is a change in the privacy rule.

The mob wanted the wording changed, so I changed it.