harassment rule discussion from Post Reports - Page 2

Preno · 02-06-2010, 05:15 PM

It looks fine to me, except I'd change it to "consequences and willful, repeated and unwanted" to avoid the agglomeration of and's.

It may also worth noting at this point (in case anyone disagrees) that since there's no way we can confirm that, we're not going to draw consequences from claims of "RL" harassment. I suppose that could be an issue if, for example, someone got another member's contact info off a private subforum and used it to harass them.

Jet Black · 02-06-2010, 06:02 PM

yeah, we can only deal with the actual threats or in-forum harassment. If someone is harassing in real life, then that is up to the appropriate authorities to deal with.

Reign_Cryogen · 02-06-2010, 06:24 PM

I really think we should stop basing decisions on whether or not someone might stop liking raven.

'Cause this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Preno

Not sure, but we certainly didn't act on it.

is unacceptable.

eta since I know someone is going to go on the defensive about this, i'm being a little hyperbolic

laughing dog · 02-06-2010, 06:55 PM

I cannot believe there is a discussion about whether or not we have to "spell out" what is harassment. There are so many different forms of harassment, we could not possibly spell them all out, so that opens the door to "rules lawyering". Since harassment is not an immediate banishment (or suspension or even a slap on the wrist here), one would think anyone with even a quarter of a wit would get the fucking clue after the innumerable warnings we give before starting to scratch our asses about what to do.

Preno · 02-06-2010, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laughing dog

I cannot believe there is a discussion about whether or not we have to "spell out" what is harassment. There are so many different forms of harassment, we could not possibly spell them all out

I don't think anyone suggested that itt

Quote:

Since harassment is not an immediate banishment (or suspension or even a slap on the wrist here), one would think anyone with even a quarter of a wit would get the fucking clue after the innumerable warnings we give before starting to scratch our asses about what to do.

What does that have to do with whether we should include that in the rule or not? Surely if your complaint is that harassment "is not" (by which, I assume, you mean "doesn't lead to") "even a slap on the wrist here", then spelling out that this counts as harassment, too, may prevent these sorts of discussions in the future? I think you're confusing refusing to act and instead engaging in endless discussions on the one hand, and discussing how to react in the future to such and such cases on the other. There's nothing wrong with the latter.

laughing dog · 02-06-2010, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Preno

I don't think anyone suggested that itt

Quote:

Since harassment is not an immediate banishment (or suspension or even a slap on the wrist here), one would think anyone with even a quarter of a wit would get the fucking clue after the innumerable warnings we give before starting to scratch our asses about what to do.

What does that have to do with whether we should include that in the rule or not? Surely if your complaint is that harassment "is not" (by which, I assume, you mean "doesn't lead to") "even a slap on the wrist here", then spelling out that this counts as harassment, too, may prevent these sorts of discussions in the future?

It will lead to more "rules lawyering" discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Preno

I
I think you're confusing refusing to act and instead engaging in endless discussions on the one hand, and discussing how to react in the future to such and such cases on the other. There's nothing wrong with the latter.

There is when it is a variant of the former.

Preno · 02-06-2010, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laughing dog

It will lead to more "rules lawyering" discussion.

Mark my words!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Preno

I think you're confusing refusing to act and instead engaging in endless discussions on the one hand, and discussing how to react in the future to such and such cases on the other. There's nothing wrong with the latter.

There is when it is a variant of the former.

How is it a variant of the former? And why are you complaining about a discussion and yet at the same are perfectly willing to start a meaningless meta-discussion about said discussion? Until the point whether you started complaining about the fact that we're having a discussion, it was a perfectly meaningful one.

eta: sometimes, the problem is that people engage in pointless discussions. Other times, the problem is that people inflate what could be a very brief and to-the-point discussion into a pointless meta-discussion.

laughing dog · 02-06-2010, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Preno

How is it a variant of the former?

This is TR.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Preno

And why are you complaining about a discussion and yet at the same are perfectly willing to start a meaningless meta-discussion about said discussion?

You are the one with meta-fixation, not me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Preno

Until the point whether you started complaining about the fact that we're having a discussion, it was a perfectly meaningful one.

That remains to be seen. It appeared (and still does give the appearance) of a postponement.substitute for action.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Preno

eta: sometimes, the problem is that people engage in pointless discussions. Other times, the problem is that people inflate what could be a very brief and to-the-point discussion into a pointless meta-discussion.

You mean like you are doing now?

Preno · 02-06-2010, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laughing dog

Quote:

Originally Posted by Preno

Until the point whether you started complaining about the fact that we're having a discussion, it was a perfectly meaningful one.

That remains to be seen. It appeared (and still does give the appearance) of a postponement.substitute for action.

How is it a substitute for action? Afaik, that report is already resolved. I'm not even sure how the mods handled it tbh. Given that the people engaging in this discussion are not the people handling the report which spawned this discussion, I don't understand how it can constitute a "substitute for action".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Preno

eta: sometimes, the problem is that people engage in pointless discussions. Other times, the problem is that people inflate what could be a very brief and to-the-point discussion into a pointless meta-discussion.

You mean like you are doing now?

For example.

ravenscape · 02-06-2010, 10:03 PM

welp.

Reign_Cryogen · 02-07-2010, 01:36 AM

Serious response: as far as I'm concerned, this is indistinguishable from "drink bleach" in any meaningful sense. In fact, it's probably more significant since nastygram emails are far more likely to happen than bodily harm. We can't stop them, no, but neither can we stop bodily harm. At least we can be assured that, in almost every case we can expect to see, nobody here has the balls to take a swing at someone even if they lack the self-respect to preclude going into passive-aggressive supernova (read: Schneibster).

ravenscape · 02-09-2010, 01:01 AM

so it sounds like we're not real close to agreement on 1) whether threatening irl harm is particularly worrysome and 2) if it is a form of harassment, whether the rule actually needs to be modified to make that explicit.

Reign_Cryogen · 02-09-2010, 04:05 PM

1) It probably isn't worthy of particular concern but neither should it be acceptable. Keep in mind that in realspace the definition of assault is, generally, "apprehension of harm." Not "harm." There is a reason for the distinction.

2) I don't think it needs to be modified but I'm not a lawyer so I tend not to get too hung up on the letter. ymmv

ravenscape · 02-09-2010, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reign_Cryogen

1) It probably isn't worthy of particular concern but neither should it be acceptable. Keep in mind that in realspace the definition of assault is, generally, "apprehension of harm." Not "harm." There is a reason for the distinction.

True. I'm not sure how to apply that to words on a message board, though.

Quote:

2) I don't think it needs to be modified but I'm not a lawyer so I tend not to get too hung up on the letter. ymmv

I didn't think the rule needs to be modified either, but IMO it's not huge deal either way.

Preno · 02-09-2010, 07:47 PM

I don't think the rule strictly speaking needs to be modified, either, but it seems prudent to do that in order to avoid potential disputes in the future. Might as well vote on it along with the other procedural modifications when we get to them.

02-06-2010, 05:15 PM	#799361 / #26
Preno moaist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Prague, Czech Rep. Posts: 8,362	It looks fine to me, except I'd change it to "consequences and willful, repeated and unwanted" to avoid the agglomeration of and's. It may also worth noting at this point (in case anyone disagrees) that since there's no way we can confirm that, we're not going to draw consequences from claims of "RL" harassment. I suppose that could be an issue if, for example, someone got another member's contact info off a private subforum and used it to harass them. __________________ You must know that Preno is a self confessed uber troll, and he boasts about his activities to others on other forums? Surely you are aware he only behaves when he has to, to not get banned. He's a liar and probably borderline psychopathic with poor emotional aptitude and an inability to get jokes or humour. He doesn't understand when he does wrong, like any good psychopath he never apologises. - The Dagda / Sidhe848

02-06-2010, 06:02 PM	#799409 / #27
Jet Black It's Elementary Administrator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 18,118	yeah, we can only deal with the actual threats or in-forum harassment. If someone is harassing in real life, then that is up to the appropriate authorities to deal with. __________________ The Feynmann Algorithm: (1) Write down the problem (2) Think real hard (3) Write down the solution

02-06-2010, 06:55 PM	#799477 / #29
laughing dog Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 8,338	I cannot believe there is a discussion about whether or not we have to "spell out" what is harassment. There are so many different forms of harassment, we could not possibly spell them all out, so that opens the door to "rules lawyering". Since harassment is not an immediate banishment (or suspension or even a slap on the wrist here), one would think anyone with even a quarter of a wit would get the fucking clue after the innumerable warnings we give before starting to scratch our asses about what to do. __________________ Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

02-07-2010, 01:36 AM	#799794 / #36
Reign_Cryogen The code is the law. Administrator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 8,688	Serious response: as far as I'm concerned, this is indistinguishable from "drink bleach" in any meaningful sense. In fact, it's probably more significant since nastygram emails are far more likely to happen than bodily harm. We can't stop them, no, but neither can we stop bodily harm. At least we can be assured that, in almost every case we can expect to see, nobody here has the balls to take a swing at someone even if they lack the self-respect to preclude going into passive-aggressive supernova (read: Schneibster). __________________ I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself. A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself. Last edited by Reign_Cryogen; 02-07-2010 at 01:38 AM.

02-09-2010, 04:05 PM	#802919 / #38
Reign_Cryogen The code is the law. Administrator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 8,688	1) It probably isn't worthy of particular concern but neither should it be acceptable. Keep in mind that in realspace the definition of assault is, generally, "apprehension of harm." Not "harm." There is a reason for the distinction. 2) I don't think it needs to be modified but I'm not a lawyer so I tend not to get too hung up on the letter. ymmv __________________ I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself. A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself.

02-06-2010, 10:03 PM	#799629 / #35
ravenscape asynchronicity Administrator Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Norton's Empire Posts: 44,876	welp.

02-09-2010, 01:01 AM	#802355 / #37
ravenscape asynchronicity Administrator Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Norton's Empire Posts: 44,876	so it sounds like we're not real close to agreement on 1) whether threatening irl harm is particularly worrysome and 2) if it is a form of harassment, whether the rule actually needs to be modified to make that explicit.

02-09-2010, 07:47 PM	#803280 / #40
Preno moaist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Prague, Czech Rep. Posts: 8,362	I don't think the rule strictly speaking needs to be modified, either, but it seems prudent to do that in order to avoid potential disputes in the future. Might as well vote on it along with the other procedural modifications when we get to them. __________________ You must know that Preno is a self confessed uber troll, and he boasts about his activities to others on other forums? Surely you are aware he only behaves when he has to, to not get banned. He's a liar and probably borderline psychopathic with poor emotional aptitude and an inability to get jokes or humour. He doesn't understand when he does wrong, like any good psychopath he never apologises. - The Dagda / Sidhe848

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode