Something For Discussion (A possible rule)

[Lord Jim]

I will readily admit that I haven't thought this out very thoroughly, so I'm really looking for some ideas and suggestions here...

An exchange that began last night between LoCA and BSG, got me to thinking (Let me make clear...LoCA started this exchange; given what LoCa said, I am not at all faulting BSG for responding) that one "rule" that might be very beneficial for this place would be an absolute prohibition on bringing any information about another poster obtained through off board exchanges on to the board without the permission of the other party.

It used to be the case that this was just generally understood, and simply didn't happen....(I have had numerous exchanges and contacts with folks off the board for years, and to the best of my knowledge, I have never revealed publicly anything I learned in confidence, no matter how sour my on board relationship with that person may have later become...I admit I was sorely tempted a little while back in one case, but I resisted the temptation.)

But it seems like beginning a couple of years ago back at the CSB, this started to happen....and it seems like it's been happening more and more....

Without going into finger pointing, or revisiting anything that has happened previously, it seems to me that we could really benefit from a rule that simply prohibited it, going forward. (much like the rule against posting another posters personal information.)

I've had some ideas for a sort of progressive discipline regarding enforcement, (maybe the first time the admins would delete the privately obtained info that was posted and warn the poster, perhaps a second offense would result in a week's suspension, a third a month, and so on.)

I think there would be fairly broad agreement that a prohibition of this sort, in theory, would be a positive thing for the board, and not place any sort of relevant "free speech" restrictions. (Any more than banning the posting of personal information does.) I think it's pretty clear that a lot of the most ugly drama we have seen here (and at the CSB before this) has been fueled by this.

Where I'm stuck though, (and why I haven't formally proposed it as a rule to be adopted, and set up a poll for the membership) is in trying to figure out a fair way to determine when this "rule" had been broken....

I can see situations arising for example, where person A could claim that person B had posted something about them that they learned through an off board exchange, and person B would then claim no, person A had actually posted the information on the board. Given the number of posts, (and the additional fact that we also have a whole archive of previous exchanges that aren't even accessible) I am at a loss to come up with a workable and fair way to determine when someone should be found in violation of a rule like this, if the person accused insists they didn't violate the rule....

Thoughts?

[Lord Jim]

In thinking about it further....

Maybe the way to address the problem I outlined in my hypothetical at the end of the OP is to place the burden of proof on the person posting the information....

In other words, unless you are certain that it was publicly posted and can therefore produce the post where it was made public, don't post it.

If you think it might have been posted on the CSB, but can't produce it because you can't access the CSB archives, don't post it.

And of course if we had this rule, if someone posted info about you that they had obtained through private communications, (PMs, emails phone conversations, ftf meetings, whatever) rather than respond in kind, (which would put you in violation of the rule as well) you would report it, the info would be removed, and the person who posted it would receive the appropriate discipline.

[Joe Guy]

After reading your suggestions, I went and found the exchange between LoCA & BSG that I'm sure you are referring to. In that example, although one of them went first, they both brought up personal things about each other. Neither of them complained about it.

Would you penalize both of them anyway? Or would you wait for one of them to complain that something personal from off-board was brought up?

I don't believe a specific rule needs to be written or posted. I think we should deal with the very serious situations as they arise. Everyone knows when they are crossing the line and they know when they are taking a chance that they will offend the majority. People here also should understand by now that extremely bad behavior will be dealt with by the administrators.

In short, I believe that what you're suggesting is already an 'unwritten rule' and is something only a republican named Jim who scams for a living in San Francisco and lives not too far from the Cliff House would come up with.

[MajGenl.Meade]

... and is a cross-dresser...

[Lord Jim]

Would you penalize both of them anyway?

I guess my assumption is, (possibly incorrect) that if the rule I'm suggesting were in effect, the second posting of privately conveyed info wouldn't happen because the poster who was the first target would report it rather than retaliate...

Neither of them complained about it.

I don't think you can assume from that that BSG wasn't unhappy that LoCA posted that info. Seems to me she must have been, or she wouldn't have retaliated. Right now, when this sort of thing happens, the only option for redress is retaliation, which can obviously lead to escalation, and an even worse situation. Under my proposal, there would be another course available; the privately conveyed information would be removed and the person who violated the rule would be punished for violating the rule. My supposition is that most folks who have private confidences violated would opt for that rather than an ugly back and forth round of highly personal drama. (I know I would)

In short, I believe that what you're suggesting is already an 'unwritten rule'

As I pointed out in my OP, it certainly used to be. But going back to the at least the last couple of years of the CSB, it seems to have been violated more and more.

... and is a cross-dresser...

Okay General, you only know that because of the photos I sent you...

You're lucky this rule isn't in effect or that would be you warned....

[Joe Guy]

Right now, when this sort of thing happens, the only option for redress is retaliation, which can obviously lead to escalation, and an even worse situation.

I can see why you believe that agitation leads to acceleration of the confrontation requiring mediation and you'd want cessation or to impose a vacation but I resist the temptation to implement regulation.

[loCAtek]

Frankly, my background has been told and re-told to me so many times; even I don't recognize myself anymore. You just gotta laff.


Maybe it isn't a rule for you, but it is for me; I've just been written up again... LOL

[BoSoxGal]

I believe I posted on the old CSB that if someone did an Internet background search on me the worst thing they'd find was bankruptcy - so loCAcunt didn't reveal a dark secret - I'm an open book and don't deal in lies.

What offends me is her general scumminess in interjecting herself in a conversation she wasn't a part of to cast aspersions on me that are entirely unjustified. She's jealous that instead of a loser who doesn't support me in my health issues like she has in Yuca, I had a BF who took me on a cruise to recuperate from major surgery - so she tries to make me sound like a financial reprobate who spends lavishly once her creditors are screwed - even though I shared with her, offboard, that I was reaffirming 95% of my debts. Whatever.

She's admitted stealing in her posts, and I'm pretty sure at the old CSB she begged openly for 'loans' - anyway, it's no secret to those of you who fell for 'loaning' her money that she engaged in that behavior.

The truth about me and I've no shame in stating it publicly is that I've been on my own since 17, making my own way through hard work, luck, and the support (not usually financial) of good friends. I've struggled with money all along because to please my mother I took the route of indebting myself to higher education, and I've lived payroll to payroll for years while paying off student loans and making unwise decisions like choosing to be hospice care for a dear friend rather than let her die alone with strangers wiping her ass.

Am I perfect? Far from it! I can't even count all my mistakes anymore. But I've never engaged in a months - years - long campaign to bully or harass another human being, as loCA's done to Gob & Hen. I've responded (foul language, mostly) when attacked at CSB and here, but I've not posted lies or false accusations about anybody, ever. LJ thinks I've been too snarky lately and while I don't entirely agree with his perspective, I'll agree I find myself less and less amused by the range of bickering - attacking that goes on in this forum.

Make whatever rules you like; I won't be breaking them.

[The Hen]

In other words, unless you are certain that it was publicly posted and can therefore produce the post where it was made public, don't post it.

If you think it might have been posted on the CSB, but can't produce it because you can't access the CSB archives, don't post it.

It makes sense to me.

I can't help but think this is Lo's little way of retaliating for what she perceives as people "bringing up the past" as she was complaining about (without evidence naturally) in another thread recently.

Some people are just scum, deep down scum, no matter what rules you have to put in place.

[Scooter]

I've just been written up again

It's called probation. And as if there would be any shortage of stuff about which to "write you up".

But by all means, continue on this path, because clearly acting the same way time after time after time and expecting a different result is working so well for you so far.

[MajGenl.Meade]

When he's right, he's right

[loCAtek]

Well, can the rules exist before I break them, maybe?


Juss a thought

[MajGenl.Meade]

They did and you do

Juss tellin'

[loCAtek]

Respectfully request, where are they posted, sir?

[MajGenl.Meade]

There are no hard and fast board rules for this board.
Any issues of contention will be put to the membership for consideration, debate, and probably a poll.

The second sentence there - that's the rule.

What you seem unable or unwilling to avoid doing (posting unwarranted abuse and personal attacks) has been considered, debated, polled and you have had the limits of what the folks here are prepared to tolerate from you made crystal clear.

You spoiled a perfectly good thread by coming into it solely to abuse BSG, posting gratuitously hurtful personal slurs and keeping it up thereafter. Your disingenuous parroting of questions about 'rules' are just another example of digital pollution

Meade

[Timster]

Respectfully request, where are they posted, sir?

I am compelled to agree with the Major here.


Fine. I Respectfully request that you cease and desist with the current and all on-going vendettas on all fronts!

Sorry Loca, but you have been given every benefit of the doubt here. Frankly? You have got on your knees, nay, lower than a snake on snow shoes to get yourself banned by continuously taking the LOW road at every turn... All of which is complete BULLSHIT!

What IS your agenda anyways? Don't answer that. I don't care anymore. That is how lame your modus operandi has become and why I am past putting up with it. However, I will save you the drama and the out-- of calling me some sort of dime store psychologist. Whom doesn't have the facts in order OR someone that doesn't care about you. Because you know that is not true. Don't make me post another... because you know exactly what I am talking about.

So, please, just stop it!?

Or, I shall be forced to vote with Democratic Majority. And I would miss you.

Respectfully,

Timster

[The Hen]

There are no hard and fast board rules for this board.
Any issues of contention will be put to the membership for consideration, debate, and probably a poll.

The second sentence there - that's the rule.

That has been the premise of this Board since its creation.

Plan B was never going to be a mirror image of the CSB.

People had already overwhelmingly shown how that premise would be fucked on the CSB, and how fucked it was to be part of the general membership.

Keep going this way Lo and you will see why a majority opinion will hold so much sway on THIS board. Then the rest of us will appreciated WHY having solid input from the membership makes this a good Board to remain a member of.



It's all in your control, Lo. It is time to accept responsibility for your actions.

Your choice.

Live up to your words and show us how you have grown.

[Lord Jim]

Fine. I Respectfully request that you cease and desist with the current and all on-going vendettas on all fronts!

[Scooter]

I hate to say I told you so.

Nah, who am I kidding. People who were believing she had it in her to change might as well have been hoping that dogs stop licking themselves. And they now can see exactlly how far that got them.

[Lord Jim]

LoCA, this trolling about the "rules" strawman won you the votes of 13 people here in favor of never having you post here again.

Were you disappointed that the number was so low? Are you trying to get more?

Again I can't tell you how sad it makes me to see the way a poster who for years was universally liked, didn't have a single critic, (not an easy thing to do) has allowed their behavior to degenerate to the point that about half of the active membership on this board would be happy to see the back of them permanently. (And that was before this latest round...)

I get the feeling that what you're doing is probing for ways that you can troll where you can walk up right to the precipice of being banned permanently without actually having it happen....

So you started after your suspension with the "rules" thing....

Then when the heat started to come on for that, you pivoted to the "professional credentials thing"...

Then when you sensed that one was getting too hot, you took a swipe with the "hand holding " thing....

And then a swipe at BSG...and now we're back to "the rules"...

The strategy is starting to look like, "I can get away with this just so long as I don't stay too long on the same line of attack, and occasionally wait a day or two between attacks....take brief swipes from different directions, rather than a sustained trolling across multiple threads over a single line of attack...."

Instead of trying to figure out ways of getting away with this crap without being banned, what you need to do is DROP IT COMPLETELY ONCE AND FOR ALL

You need to stop getting your advice on how to operate here from Quad, (who is just using you and your bitterness to advance his own agenda) and start listening to the plain spoken honest advice of folks like Tim.