Bartholomew Roberts's discussion thread

[jasona]

Originally Posted by SteveF

All that matters is what we do in response to people revealing personal information (and whether the rhyming and letter changing stuff counts). Whether it's a button or not is irrelevant.

With regards to Bart, as this is his thread, he posted LD's name, his home address and his phone number. If that doesn't merit a decisive response, fuck knows what does.

I'm not saying to leave that information there; obviously it needs to be dealt with. I`m saying don`t needlessly escalate the issue. I actually buy damian`s suggestion that Preno`s PM to Bart was provocational. Please be more careful next time.

[Preno]

Originally Posted by jasona

I think reacting as strongly as you did demonstrated that this is a button that can be hammered to get a overreaction from staff. Until everyone gets tired of it.

In what sense was this an overreaction? I'm following our established procedure. I would have preferred to simply PM all three of them if we agree that they should be told to stop or else, but since raven explicitly said that discussion threads are in order, I started these member discussion threads as per the procedure. The only thing I find baffling is that other admins don't seem to be participating in them (despite the fact that raven clearly said that they are in order).

[SteveF]

Originally Posted by jasona

I'm not saying to leave that information there; obviously it needs to be dealt with. I`m saying don`t needlessly escalate the issue. I actually buy damian`s suggestion that Preno`s PM to Bart was provocational. Please be more careful next time.

People are responsible for their own actions. Nothing whatsoever Preno did forced Bart to reveal all of LD's personal details. As such, the call for Preno to be more careful is unbalanced. As staff, we can be more or less diplomatic, more or less decisive or whatever. But ultimately, it wasn't Preno's carefulness or lack of it that forced to Bart put finger to keyboard. Preno shouldn't be the focus here.

[Preno]

Originally Posted by jasona

I'm not saying to leave that information there; obviously it needs to be dealt with. I`m saying don`t needlessly escalate the issue. I actually buy damian`s suggestion that Preno`s PM to Bart was provocational. Please be more careful next time.

For the record, the PM that they all got was:

Please check your "member discussion threads" in here.

Personally, I would have preferred to just send you all a simple PM notifying you that next time you'll get suspended, but apparently, that's not the "TR way", the TR way is to have three separate threads where we "discuss" this ad infinitum. (You are, of course, not obliged to participate.)

I believe in plainly stating the facts, not diplomacy, but I don't perceive that as provocational. I also think it's only fair if I disclose my personal opinion on the matter (unless it's insulting, I suppose), as long as it's clearly marked as such.

[jasona]

You are losing the perception war. It really looks like you are hunting for an excuse to use the ban hammer to me. Also, whatever was said to Bart in PM seems to have been a proximate cause for setting him off. Surely after all of these years we know better how to speak to one another?

By banning Bart it sent a signal that he did something "really bad" and folks are now actively deconstructing that to see what information was so valuable that it needed such close protection. I don't know "standard procedures", I don't know what options were available to get that information out of a signature or title. I do know that none of this has improved the situation at all.

[Preno]

Originally Posted by jasona

You are losing the perception war.

Good thing I don't give a toss about the perception war, then.

It really looks like you are hunting for an excuse to use the ban hammer to me. Also, whatever was said to Bart in PM seems to have been a proximate cause for setting him off.

I just quoted the entirety of the message that they all got. Please identify the "proximate cause" according to you.

I also don't understand why I would be "hunting for an excuse" to ban Bart for a couple of hours. What would I gain from that?

By banning Bart it sent a signal that he did something "really bad" and folks are now actively deconstructing that to see what information was so valuable that it needed such close protection. I don't know "standard procedures", I don't know what options were available to get that information out of a signature or title.

Well:

Originally Posted by me

Because I'm not sure how to do that and it's much simpler to first suspend him, then remove the sig and avatar and then fiddle with the settings in peace (or, even better, let someone who knows what they're doing fiddle with them).

Also, there's the fact that at the very least we needed to get him to agree not to post that any more (lol, I know)

[jasona]

I've said my peace. Obviously the personal information needed to be removed. No, I do not hold Preno responsible for Bart's actions. I do think that it could have been dealt with better. I think the "I would have preferred to just send you all a simple PM notifying you that next time you'll get suspended, but apparently, that's not the "TR way" line sets you up an an authoritarian, is provocational, and paints a target on you in the minds of some members of our community. Obviously you don't see it in the same way, and that might be the root of the problem.

I am also concerned about the rhetoric ("consequences", "setting boundaries" etc.) being used in discussing how to move forward from here.

[Preno]

Originally Posted by jasona

I've said my peace. Obviously the personal information needed to be removed. No, I do not hold Preno responsible for Bart's actions. I do think that it could have been dealt with better. I think the "I would have preferred to just send you all a simple PM notifying you that next time you'll get suspended, but apparently, that's not the "TR way" line sets you up an an authoritarian, is provocational, and paints a target on you in the minds of some members of our community. Obviously you don't see it in the same way, and that might be the root of the problem.

Oh, I agree that it might "paint a target on me in the minds of some members of our community". But I certainly don't think that if I had omitted that bit Bart would have behaved in any way differently. What makes you think so?

I am also concerned about the rhetoric ("consequences", "setting boundaries" etc.) being used in discussing how to move forward from here.

What do you find concerning about that? What I find concerning is when people use vague, non-commital and virtually meaningless phrases instead of clearly stating their opinion.

There's nothing rhetorical about that. "Consequences" clearly means facing a temporary suspension. "Setting boundaries" as opposed to solving members' personal conflicts means that we shouldn't make the enforcement of our privacy rules conditional on anything (otherwise, they simply lose their preventative power).

[laughing dog]

Originally Posted by jasona

I'm not saying to leave that information there; obviously it needs to be dealt with. I`m saying don`t needlessly escalate the issue. I actually buy damian`s suggestion that Preno`s PM to Bart was provocational. Please be more careful next time.

Do you mean that you think Preno was deliberately trying to provoke BR into an escalation or that BR felt justified into his escalation? I think the former interpretation is simply unreasonable given the wording and the context, and the latter interpretation is retarded.

[Reign_Cryogen]

What would you have done, jasona? Some limp-wristed "play nithe?" Go fuck yourself.

[jasona]

Originally Posted by Reign_Cryogen

What would you have done, jasona? Some limp-wristed "play nithe?" Go fuck yourself.

Yea, I deserve that for voicing my own opinion. Sorry my groupthink session didn't take.

I would have written the message to LD, damian, and Bart differently. I would have just directed them to the discussion threads. I would have left out the "Aw, heck, we're gonna talk. I'd just tell you you're banned the next time, but this is TR! so we'er gonna talk forever" bullshit. I suspect Preno thought he was being jokey, but instead it threw gasoline on the fire.

Is it really that hard to see?

[jasona]

Originally Posted by laughing dog

Do you mean that you think Preno was deliberately trying to provoke BR into an escalation or that BR felt justified into his escalation? I think the former interpretation is simply unreasonable given the wording and the context, and the latter interpretation is retarded.

I mean that only an idiot wouldn't see that would provoke a certain reaction in an individual with a deep antiauthoritarian streak. I don't think Preno gave it much thought. That is why I am asking for more care in the future.

[Reign_Cryogen]

Originally Posted by jasona

Yea, I deserve that for voicing my own opinion. Sorry my groupthink session didn't take.

Yes, that was me criticizing you for having an opinion. How fucking perceptive of you to pick up on it.

Originally Posted by jasona

I would have written the message to LD, damian, and Bart differently. I would have just directed them to the discussion threads. I would have left out the "Aw, heck, we're gonna talk. I'd just tell you you're banned the next time, but this is TR! so we'er gonna talk forever" bullshit. I suspect Preno thought he was being jokey, but instead it threw gasoline on the fire.

Is it really that hard to see?

Thank you. Was that so fucking difficult, Sally?

Fucking christ.

eta I probably would have done the same as you for much the same reasons but I'm disinclined to ;;british;; Preno from the bleachers over a triviality.

But I suppose he deserved that for voicing his opinion, hm?

[SteveF]

Originally Posted by jasona

I would have written the message to LD, damian, and Bart differently. I would have just directed them to the discussion threads. I would have left out the "Aw, heck, we're gonna talk. I'd just tell you you're banned the next time, but this is TR! so we'er gonna talk forever" bullshit. I suspect Preno thought he was being jokey, but instead it threw gasoline on the fire.

Well, not really. We're not talking about Bart coming home to find Preno balls deep into his girlfriend, smoking one of his cigars. It was a mildly undiplomatic PM, that's all. Plus, this is ultimately a side issue anyway, so there's little point in getting distracted by it. The key issue surrounds members privacy and how we ensure, to the best of our abilities, that this is protected.

[jasona]

1) I don't think its a "triviality"
2) I answered your question as soon after I was asked it as was possible, so I don't understand your "was it that hard" comment.

[jasona]

Originally Posted by SteveF

The key issue surrounds members privacy and how we ensure, to the best of our abilities, that this is protected.

When have I challenged this Steve?

[SteveF]

You haven't as far as I'm aware.

[Reign_Cryogen]

Originally Posted by jasona

2) I answered your question as soon after I was asked it as was possible, so I don't understand your "was it that hard" comment.

I meant as in saying so from the outset rather than starting out with "be more careful next time."

[jasona]

Originally Posted by Reign_Cryogen

I meant as in saying so from the outset rather than starting out with "be more careful next time."

I didn't have the exact text of the PM right off the bat did I?

[Preno]

Originally Posted by jasona

I would have written the message to LD, damian, and Bart differently. I would have just directed them to the discussion threads. I would have left out the "Aw, heck, we're gonna talk. I'd just tell you you're banned the next time, but this is TR! so we'er gonna talk forever" bullshit. I suspect Preno thought he was being jokey, but instead it threw gasoline on the fire.

No, I was merely trying to express that I personally disagree with that procedure and that according to me, the simplest way to deal with the issue was to send them a short PM notifying them that they'll get suspended the next time they do that. Given that in the past, I had no problem participating in other procedures at TR that I personally found idiotic (such as the whole appeals thing), I don't find that to be particularly problematic and I certainly don't think that if the PM were worded differently, BR wouldn't have displayed LD's address in his sig and avatar. That seems to me like arbitrarily looking for post hoc justifications (as evidenced by the fact that you made that conclusion before you even saw the PM).

eta: if LD is unhappy with what happened and holds me responsible for it, I'll gladly apologize to him, but I'm not going to do that just because others feel that the wording of the PM was to blame, that would be absurd.

[Reign_Cryogen]

Originally Posted by jasona

I'm not saying to leave that information there; obviously it needs to be dealt with. I`m saying don`t needlessly escalate the issue. I actually buy damian`s suggestion that Preno`s PM to Bart was provocational. Please be more careful next time.

;;unsure;;

anyway, i've said what i have to say.

[jasona]

Originally Posted by Preno

That seems to me like arbitrarily looking for post hoc justifications (as evidenced by the fact that you made that conclusion before you even saw the PM).

My opinion was formed from actually talking to Bart last night. FYI.

[ravenscape]

Originally Posted by SteveF

Well, not really. We're not talking about Bart coming home to find Preno balls deep into his girlfriend, smoking one of his cigars. It was a mildly undiplomatic PM, that's all. Plus, this is ultimately a side issue anyway, so there's little point in getting distracted by it. The key issue surrounds members privacy and how we ensure, to the best of our abilities, that this is protected.

yeah that's the key issue.

I think we backed into a reasonable response to posting someone's real world contact info, actually:

- remove it
- emergency suspension pending agreement to not do it again

If Bart Rob were to repost than info or add it to his profile again, I agree with a week's suspension.

However, I don't think rhyming names are a rule violation. We're making way too big a deal of them, and that is clouding the issue of actual privacy violation.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Bat Smile

[Preno]

Moving to the archive.