Reported Post by 14thDoctor

14thDoctor has reported a post.

Reason:

Post: David Lettermen - Bitter old fuck
Forum: The Red Room
Assigned Moderators: N/A

Posted by: Jamey Whistler
Original Content:

This is just as damn stupid as what we banned Garamet over. If he wants to report it about himself, he should know damn well not to toe the line.

Agreed. Get out Mjolnir.

I would like Tamar to address Whistler about his use of images in his sig to troll members whose real names he apparently finds out. They're friends to some degree, so maybe she can get him to knock it off.

So, Garamet trolls someone with a 'clever' (read: fucking stupid) use of their name, and gets banned, but Jamey here trolls someone with a 'clever' (read: fucking stupid) use of their name, and gets a stern talking-to by Tamar who, if 14D is to be believed, informed TK of the target's name in the first place.

Sorry, but if anyone should know better, it should be someone who has been a target before.

Meanwhile...

Look, I know Tamar has RL stuff to deal with constantly and I can't fault her for that, but we have to do something about Jamey Whistler now.

I know that I'm getting tired of his bullshit. This is what, the second time we've warned him off of a "subtle" troll like this? He's dancing right on the edge and it's getting fuckin' old.

Notice the photos in question are now gone from his sig.

And the worst part is, I actually like him as a poster. He's smart and can string words together to form a real argument. The kind we need more of around here. But he won't leave off of these chickenshit games, which is the same goddam crap Garamet was pulling.

Ban his ass or no? Everybody pick a side. I'm saying ban him. For consistency, if nothing else.

Y'know, for a minute, I was going to say give the guy one last shot, then nail his ass to the wall when he fucks up again.

But I'm tired of this game. Ban him now, and tell him that if he's going to play games with someone's name, he shouldn't go whining when it happens to him.

Of course, the real :devilpop: thing to do would be to let the forum pick - he stays and Garamet returns, or he goes and Garamet remains persona-non-grata. Public poll, so it will be obvious to the rest of the membership to whom privacy actually matters, and for whom it is just a talking point used for rabble-rousing. Unfortunately, it could easily set precedent, both for how things are decided and on how borderline reality trolling is treated. Fun to imagine, though. I would bet the results would be...illuminating.

Well...there is one difference here that is kind of salient:

We know that Jamey's name is Wil and we know that Garamet knew it from being punished for using it before.

This time we knew Garamet was targeting Jamey with his name again because she clearly referred to him as "Wee Willy".

Jamey has said not a word to anyone about Doctor's name, nor has he targeted 14th Doctor in his sig in any way.

He took a bunch of generic pictures of Rays and stuck it in his signature. The rule, I remind you, is no revealing personal information. How in holy hell did he reveal anything to anyone? Who would have even known Doc's name was Ray except he just told you?

This opens the door for anyone to set anyone else up with the merest hint of something meaningful to them as personal information in order to "get" people they don't like.

The most he can really be accused of here is trolling, because the only revelation here was from Doc himself.

Yeah, except for the second time he's apparently trolling someone via subtle pictures. First time I was willing to write off as coincidence, but now he's done it again? If he's your bud, Tamar, you need to get him to back the hell off of this crap.

I will talk to him about it.

I don't disagree he's trolling Doc and should get a warning if he posted outside the Red or Gray Rooms with the signature.

I would disagree with banning for revealing personal information because there was no revealing done by anyone but Doc himself.

And ya know, my stomach is upset and I'm tired as hell, so I think I'm going to bed for the night.

Crap, I hope I'm not coming down with something . . .

Get some rest and take care of yourself.

I PM'd Jamey and told him to knock the shit off or else, BTW.

This is no different than 14thDoc trolling KIRK with all the Paul threads. No, we should nail Jamey Whistler's ass to the wall on this one.

So, let me get this straight, Tamar. You say that 'the most he can really be accused of here is trolling.' If he is not revealing personal information, then how is it trolling? I mean, last I checked, it isn't trolling to pull a Beetlejuice and say some random name a half-dozen times. And hell, if he had posted images of every actor who played The Doctor, even that wouldn't really qualify as trolling, now would it? No, it's his real name that makes it offensive. And real name = real life information, correct? We went over this same bullshit with the picture of D's mom - just because no explicit link was made doesn't make it wrong. In fact, in some ways, it's far worse - it's a threat. It's saying, directly to him and no one else, "I know something personal. Piss me off, and I just might make it publicly known."

You've acknowledged that what he did was wrong, but your reason why doesn't make a lick of sense. This shit does not belong on the board. You want to Internet Lawyer it up, fine. But in the end, what we should be protecting against is the use and abuse of private personal information. Anything else is just half-assed.

I have to say that I actually agree with Tamar, although her posts absolutely stinks of bias, which, IMO, should not affect a Mod's duties.

At the end of the day I do think that Jamey was trolling rather than revealing personal information. Correct me if I'm wrong since I haven't yet looked at the original thread, but the revelation of personal information is, at the moment, retained in this thread. With that in mind nothing has been revealed to the board membership and no rule has been broken. He was clearly setting a trap for 14thDoc, and it was up to 14thDoc to bite, which he did, but in limited manner.

I say he needs a stern talking to as well. But he also needs to receive a full warning. This would tell him, in my opinion, how close he came to being banned.

This is what I was talking about in this thread.

The staff response seems clear, doesn't matter how the info was shared, the ban hammer has to drop on everyone who shares another member's personal information.*

Give this thread a read.

So to answer your question in post #7 Lanz, the rule clearly calls for banishment.






*The exception of course being personal info a member has already shared about themselves outside of the Blue Room.

Still not convinced. That to me is as if my name were Bob and someone posted the name Bob in their sig. Why would I cry foul? If I do so then is it not me alerting the membership to my real name, not the person who posted it in their sig.

For me, the personal info rule should only be activated when the perpetrator actively and clearly gives the impression that such information relates to a particular person.

I understand what you're saying yet I have no interest wading into this lawyerball idiocy.

Clearly there is an ongoing "issue" between the posters involved, and I don't like the fact that the staff has been drawn into the feud. Let's keep it simple, personal info is a no go, that should be the end of our involvement. The staff shouldn't take a side.

But I'm not taking a side. What possible reason do I have to take a side? I hardly know the guy. I am debating whether or not the personal information rule has been breached. I'm just saying that while the rule is clear I simply don't see it as being engaged.

Perhaps other people here calling for his ban has a motivation to see him banished.

I just think we need to be completely sure there was a proper breach before the ban hammer falls.

Oh, and I'm getting tired of people bringing out this "internet lawyer" jibe all the time. Lawyers, though loathed and despised in America, do have specific training for a reason and that's why people seek out their advice and services. Part of that is to carefully look at situations. There's nothing wrong with people doing this, lawyer or not, internet or not. Juts because somepeople don't always get the answer they want from others, doesn't mean that the other people are coming up with nonsense all the time to try and win a debate.

Me either. And I wasn't making an accusation.

Point being looking to the staff to resolve personality conflicts is crap.

I agree.

I would say this technically isn't worth a ban under the rules, but my gut says it should be ban-worthy.

So I say we throw it open to the board at largel. Lay out the rough situation (with no names mentioned) and say this sort of crap trying to skirt around the edges of the rule will not be tolerated at all in future. Have a poll asking if the member who did it should be banned given that it was technically within the rules (public poll to prevent duals stacking it) and then follow through on that result.

My gut says Baba should have been banned long ago for constant trolling and spamming, but the rules say otherwise.

Setting a bad precedent there. From that point on whenever we make a decision they don't like they'll cry for a referendum!

I am not biased....if Garamet filled her signature with pictures of Wills, I would fight just as hard for her to only be warned for trolling if she posted outside Red and Gray with it, the same I am advocating for Peter.

If Jamey had somehow linked the name Ray with the 14thDoctor in that sig..I would ban him myself.

To ban someone over generic pictures just because a poster complains is setting a far worse precedent open for all kinds of abuse. People will start looking for any way they can to link something generic to themselves in the signatures and posts of people they hate in order to get them banned.

It is baaaad juju.

Yes...but pictures of Martha Rae, Ray Stantz and stingrays are not personal information in and of themselves. And it wasn't personal information to anyone except the person who already knew what it meant. It was not revelatory in any way and hence not ban worthy.

So what if he had instead been sending him PM's that repeatedly used his name?

But why is a signature full of Wills trolling? It is expressly because of the knowledge that it reveals. And unlike a private little PM war, all it takes is one person making the connection. And we sure as fuck wouldn't ban someone for connecting the dots, now would we? So who would be to blame? The person who put it in their signature. And hell, considering that it sounds like this was spread all over TK, all it would take is one troll saying "14D + JW's sig = ?????" and, there you go. Another brilliant little loophole. "I didn't post anyone's private information."

And that doesn't even remotely address that it is easily one of the most viable threats on the internet. "Piss me off, and I'll take away your anonymity. The proof I can do so is right in my sig." Are you saying that this is the sort of behavior that we tolerate here? That this fundamental lack of respect, not just for a fellow member, but for the social contract of the board itself, is something we tolerate here?

I'll be frank - I'm not the most anonymous person here. But if someone posted something that indicated they knew my last name, revealing it to the board or not, I'd be out for blood too, and if I didn't get it, I'd be out of here. Because why the fuck would I want to participate in a place like that?

Yes, and that's why we evaluate the claims. I.E. what we're doing right now. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The rule structure the board desires means that any 'precedent' offered is not guaranteed. If they want a true system of precedent, then they need to be prepared to have the exact opposite of the simple seven-rule system we've got now. If people want to live on the raggedy edge, that means they have to deal with dread uncertainty.

In and of themselves, correct. Together, they relay a simple message. "Hi there Ray "

Let me quote Rule 5:

First, there is no requirement that it be revelatory. Second, we have followed through with the letter of this in the past when Storm's personal information was posted, and there wasn't even intent there. It wasn't even 'revelatory' there.

So, by the letter or by the spirit of our law, a ban is certainly on the table. No matter what damage has or has not occurred, Jamey is undeniably playing with someone's real-life information. Just because he's doing so quietly doesn't make it any less wrong.

By the way, this 'revelatory' shit is why, I think, Clyde and I mentioned Internet Lawyers.

Okay, I'm back. Nasty little stomach bug that turned out to be yesterday.

No, we're not going to make this a board-wide question. The bottom line here seems to be that both sides are right . . . Whistler did not explicitly reveal anyone's personal info, but it's kinda obvious what he was up to. And I have to believe there's more than one person on Wordforge with that particular first name.

*** Redacted - personal info ***

Fair enough guess the next step is making the decision public. Just so I'm clear, the member in question will not be banned or warned?

He's been "warned" thru PM. Twice now. So no, no public action. For now. I will PM 14thDoc and let him know what's up.

Oh, and Clyde . . . if you want to "make this public" will you draft up some verbiage as to how we should do that? I'm not quite clear on what you mean there.