The Blue Room

So...Chris recently posted some stuff in the Red Room about John Castle that he only posted here in the Blue Room so I reported it.

I got this today..

"Unfortunately, your recent report has been rejected: Post in thread 'How Could Companies Like Wal-Mart EVER Pay What People Call A "Living Wage"?' - No evidence that Chris ever saw this in the Blue Room."

And I am concerned.

The assumption has always been if Blue Room info gets posted in the Red Room the violator must prove they saw it elsewhere or there would be consequences. Now apparently all someone has to do is claim they never saw it and made a lucky guess and they will get away with dragging Blue Room info into the light. I think this is an unwise position to take. The Blue Room needs to be strictly enforced so people feel relatively safe posting personal stuff there.

If it is going to be less strictly enforced, the people who post there should be made aware of it so they can make an informed choice about how much they are willing to share with the higher chance of unwanted reposting in other forums.

The assumption that John Castle has an Ex isn't so far out there that it had to be Blue Room derived. Combined with the fact that Chris seemed to think --REDACTED: BLUE ROOM INFORMATION. I have to agree with whoever rejected the report.

Reasonable assumption/insult that proved correct. Nothing more.

There's another element to this, which is that I'm quite certain I recall discussions of Castle's ex outside the Blue Room. Castle himself didn't report the post, and I communicated to him by PM that there wasn't anyway to determine whether Chris had actual info or where it came from.

I'm not going to warn somebody without some due process. No proof is no proof. To treat it otherwise would be a guilty until proven innocent stance, something nobody here should accept.

It was done that way before because of the need to be super-strict or the Blue Room becomes useless. There can't be a whiff of letting people spill shit outside or people get nervous. This might fly because Castle isn't well liked but it won't if it keeps happening.

It's always been understood that people needed to be vigilant to not post anything outside the Blue Room because they will be treated as guilty until proven innocent and if you don't agree with that, don't join the Blue Room.

Consequences have always been staff discretion as well. Chris could have guessed or he could be lying to cover his ass...no way to know either way. We do know Blue Room information is in the Red Room via his post and that is a violation. At the very least he should get a friendly and the posts edited.

Otherwise it looks like Blue Room rules are weakening and trolls will be looking for ways to get away with using BR info and covering their ass. For example, a troll doesn't join the Blue Room and teams up with someone who is and they feed the troll information and they can claim ignorance and blind luck all day and get away with it.

The nature of the stuff shared in there necessitates a strong stance on protecting it...otherwise it could get ugly.

But we don't know that Blue Room info was leaked in that post. I've been following Castle's current BR thread, but I knew about the ex-wife long before he started that thread. And then Castle himself made the actual reveal in the following post.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that Castle had mentioned his ex in the Red Room before.

Same.

Are you sure you guys aren't remembering it from TK when I spent a couple weeks hauling out all his dirty laundry? It was known then, but that is still not posted here by him. Someone needs to find evidence of him posting it in the Red Room or it must be assumed to come from The Blue Room.

Annoying....but part of the job, really.

Certainly made more annoying when people play silly rule games and go "Oh, but I did that on another site so it doesn't count tee-hee"

You think WF should police what people do on other sites?

No, but when people who are meant to act better do it it certainly doesn't help with that complications thing.

Anyway, to get this back to the specific matter on hand:

Green Room:

Introductions Room:

John Castle is often publicly referred to as SkinOfEvil

1) It appears to have been common knowledge, from people who don't read his BR thread.

2) From my perspective it was a general insult/shot in the dark anyway. Notice how Chris also talked about shitty job performance, which if he was actually reading JC's BR thread he'd know --REDACTED: BLUE ROOM INFORMATION.


No further actions necessary IMO.

And between me starting that post and finishing it (with some Inqusision style torture/teeth cleaning in the middle) Bailey went ahead and looked it up anyway.

Probably worth editing out that bit about --REDACTED-- before this thread gets released.

Someone remind me to redact things like this^ when this is released.

No but you seem to be pretty keen to try and get someone for violating a rule whose spirit you violated more times than anyone dare count.

However, it seems like this has been proven not to be a violation.

I'm not trying to "get" anyone. And I would never, ever...ever post anything about anyone that wasn't freely available for the world to see.

The Blue Room has always been a special case and there is nothing public about it. There has always been a higher level of protection for what is posted there. Of course, new owner could mean new rules...if they are changing make it clear, please.

Thank you, Bailey, for doing the work and proving there was no violation.

Done.