The rulebook should probably be updated

I brought this up in a couple RR threads, but it was suggested that I bring it up here.

In regards to recent events that deal with personal information, I've seen many different versions of the rule being thrown around. Most recently:

The official rule, as written, says this:

You can read it yourself here. I made no changes--it's a straight copy/paste.

So the rule as written says that real life information of any board member will result in a ban. The rule makes no exception for information posted on Wordforge.

If the actual rule is that any personal information posted on Wordforge outside of the Blue Room forum is fair game, for the sake of new and old members alike, wouldn't it be prudent to update the official rules to reflect this? I wouldn't want someone sharing something in a Green Room thread, and then later be trolled with it in a Red Room thread, having not realized it was fair game.

I do remember a small amendment to the rule, with no official announcement about it nor no update to the rules. It was from back in October, and is located here.

A proposed addition to rule #5 would be something like this, with the new text in bold.

It's a bit wordy, yes. It would be nice if someone could trim it down.

Essentially, posting something in a forum that is moderated gives a false sense of security, and a new member wouldn't expect that information to then be used in a lightly moderated forum. As the rule even says, personal information is not something to be played around with, so we should give them as much warning as possible.

And by limiting it to the mainstream media, we exclude blogs, such as the incident with actormike's Livejournal.

There may other parts of the rule that I'm missing, so feel free to chime in.



Also, I'm neither trolling nor trying to play "internet lawyer" with this, before some of you start in with that. I agree that personal information shouldn't be played around with. If I had wanted to troll I would have come up with something stupid like "the staff moderates by a different set of rules than what we are given." I'm also not trying to get any member banned or unbanned with this.

I see it as an honest mistake or oversight that the rule just didn't get updated, and for the sake of privacy it should be rectified.

The rules are incomplete: http://www.wordforge.net/showthread.php?t=19511

At no point are Tamar's promulgations made known, except in her own sticky thread.

A clarification of what's meant by "real-life information" would also help.

I took it to mean the sort of thing that could do real harm - like posting someone's address, phone number, SSN, the place where they work or, as in a recent example, personal information shared offline and then posted publicly after a falling out.

If the definition is more extensive than that, clarification is needed.

Anymore input, particularly from Elwood and the rest of the staff?

It would probably be beneficial to have an update of the rules.
And it probably wouldn't hurt to have a FAQ rules page stickied somewhere so that they are faster to getting to in all forums

Also, don't forget to add Press Start to the trolling exceptions. I know Palidin almost warned me because some people in there got butthurt by my posts.

Apparently not...

Shit.

As Bailey says in this thread, we're talking about it. I'm kinda astonished no-one on staff has posted in here, tho . . . unless we all fell into the "someone else will say something" trap.

Personally, I like the idea of keeping the rules as simple and limited as possible. Anyone who's ever run anything requiring rules knows that there's no way to make the rules cover everything, and no way to write a rule so ironclad that a lawyer can't pick it to pieces. "How do you define _________?" and so forth.

On behalf of all the staff, sorry for the lack of response in here.

Thanks for the reply.

I agree that the rules should be kept as simple as possible, but they should at least be updated when they get changed.

Can we have a rule that it permissable to troll poodle in any of the rooms?

After kicking it around, I submit this wording.

That's still short and workable, but I believe it's to the point, no?

After the latest trouble, I think the rule should clarify whether personal information posted outside WF can be repeated. If something is posted on TrekBBS, for instance, it's certainly "outside the Blue Room"; and if posted on garamet's or whoever's personal website, it's also outside the Blue Room.

And while we're at it, you'd better delete the apostrophe in "its misuse", and the comma between "by them outside the", before Linda sees this.

There was no trouble if one is objective...Garamet posted links to her site here herself. Any argument was simply attempts to muddy the waters after her posting someone else's real-life information that had not shared it here themselves.

That is a winner in my eyes.

"Of any board member."

Does this mean I can finally post polarslam's phone #, which he revealed here during one night of drunken revelry?

What about trinity? Is he still a board member? Someone might also have some real life info on phantomofthenet. Is he still a member here? What if we end up pruning old members?

This is why I think the whole thing is stupid and inane.

Anything that can be found on Google will be found whether it is posted here or not. These "rules" are about as useful as Homeland Security and are nothing but an exercise in "feeling safe" when it isn't true.

The only rule that makes sense is protecting truly private information.

Of course, this is my opinion and not an indication of board policy, unfortunately.

Or, what happens if someone in the Gray Room says "Hey, look at this buffoon over at TBBS, he posted a link to his web site with his full name," and then later on, that "buffoon" registers? Is such information suddenly subject to redaction? Not really fair to the guy, he never even got the chance to be a "private WF individual."

Or, what happens if someone in the Gray Room says "Hey, look at this buffoon over at TBBS, he posted a link to his web site with his full name," and then later on, that "buffoon" registers? Is such information suddenly subject to redaction? Not really fair to the guy, he never even got the chance to be a "private WF individual."

Thank you, Kyle, for so perfectly illustrating my point about "rules".

I think Bear's proposal is good.

And really, these rules are up to the discretion of the staff and their common sense. The rules themselves were already being enforced, they just weren't part of the official rules that everyone has access to. There aren't any changes to the rules being made as far as I can see.

What would you consider truly private information? And would the If you can find it on the internet it's fair game clause negate any information from being considered "truly private"?

Somehow I think your opinion would be different if someone put 2 and 2 together, and posted a news article that named Elwoods real name.

If someone could even do that, it would require Elwood to be stupid here and reveal telling information.

Stuff like that isn't found just because someone wants it...there has to be something to go on.

Careful there, the above is very much a slippery slope.

I don't like this thread anymore.

Go ahead and close it with my blessing.

So you are saying it would be absolutely 100% bet your life on it impossible that someone with strong Google-fu could track down people like Elwood?

I think allowing any of that sort of info in would be heading down a dangerous path...

Is there a statute of limitations on this? In other words, if someone got a slap on the wrist a few months back for posting a PM, would that poster get a ban retroactively?

When there are areas that have people's property tax information and etc. posted online for all to see, I think we are playing on a majorly slippery slope when we say we can't find things out about people on the internet generally speaking.