Open poll: do you support a more active enforcement of privacy at SuCH?

Propagandhi711 wrote:look, the most agregious violator of privacy policy is an immature old douche that will reform the day he gets hit by the bus while crossing cooper street and no less. and he will continue to do what he does until he's kicked in the head hard enough so he retreats whimpering and licking his wounds for a few days. no amount of law making will deter this old fuck, so this entire exercise is a lost cause

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:i have considerable sympathy for the position in which adm. glutimov finds himself. the objective of his repeated appeals for policy changes is to lower his laundry bills, for every time [employer name removed by Admin] is mentioned here, [name removed by Admin] poops in his pants.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:i have considerable sympathy for the position in which adm. glutimov finds himself. the objective of his repeated appeals for policy changes is to lower his laundry bills, for every time [employer name removed by Admin] is mentioned here, [name removed by Admin] poops in his pants.

what brand of diapers would you suggest? what do you wear?

Rashmun wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:i have considerable sympathy for the position in which adm. glutimov finds himself. the objective of his repeated appeals for policy changes is to lower his laundry bills, for every time [employer name removed by Admin] is mentioned here, [name removed by Admin] poops in his pants.

what brand of diapers would you suggest? what do you wear?

Propa, JM claims he has turned your arse into a finely puréed pulp, and consequently one sees you barking and snarling and whining most of the time. Your comments?

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:i have considerable sympathy for the position in which adm. glutimov finds himself. the objective of his repeated appeals for policy changes is to lower his laundry bills, for every time [employer name removed by Admin] is mentioned here, [name removed by admin] poops in his pants.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:i have considerable sympathy for the position in which adm. glutimov finds himself. the objective of his repeated appeals for policy changes is to lower his laundry bills, for every time [employer name removed by Admin] is mentioned here, [name removed by Admin] poops in his pants.

what brand of diapers would you suggest? what do you wear?

Propa, JM claims he has turned your arse into a finely puréed pulp, and consequently one sees you barking and snarling and whining most of the time. Your comments?

I claim that you have phlegmy's diaper contents for breakfast three times a week. your comments?

trofimov wrote:After the end of the first day of polling, this is how the results look.

It looks like the current policy, which we arrived at almost two years ago through some robust discussions, is here to stay.

southindian wrote:Lets have a best of 3 Kho-Kho or Kabaddi match between Team 1 and Team 2 to make the final decision.

Team 3 can assist Vatican Horse Trading on "election" of the new Pope.

truthbetold wrote:pp,
for the ignorant who vote without knowledge( i.e. like me), can you once again state the current policy that was arrived at. after "robust" discussions.

trofimov wrote:

truthbetold wrote:pp,
for the ignorant who vote without knowledge( i.e. like me), can you once again state the current policy that was arrived at. after "robust" discussions.

The current policy is that Admin cannot unilaterally edit/delete posts. Admin needs a request from either the poster or the person affected. The person making the request does not need to acknowledge that the information is true, only that they would like the information removed.

The full policy is at https://such.forumotion.com/t10246-such-privacy-policy

Past discussions on this topic are at:
https://such.forumotion.com/t2718-disclosure-of-posters-personal-information
https://such.forumotion.com/t4792-regarding-hellsangel-s-persistent-usage-of-purported-real-names-of-posters-he-disagrees-with

I quote from my post from August 2011:
User A claims to disclose personal information about user B (by referring to them by a name other than handle B, or by referring to their occupation, place they live, or whatever else B has not openly shared before.) User B does not want user A to continue to do that... User B can ask admin to delete the information, without having to say whether A's claims about B are true or false. Admin will then delete all posts of A where (s)he purports to disclose B's personal information.

Here are a couple of other quotes from that discussion that I agreed with then, and I agree with now:

BW says:
I wish that instead of an "admin" having to delete posts, the posters show some maturity in this matter. It is okay to have differences, make fun of each other, even abuse each other but there are certain lines that shouldn't be crossed and it should be obvious to any educated, cultured adult.

Max says:
i agree with the position that persisting with using someone's real name after they have objected to it is clearly beyond the pale. there's just no justification for it.

trofimov wrote:

truthbetold wrote:pp,
for the ignorant who vote without knowledge( i.e. like me), can you once again state the current policy that was arrived at. after "robust" discussions.

The current policy is that Admin cannot unilaterally edit/delete posts. Admin needs a request from either the poster or the person affected. The person making the request does not need to acknowledge that the information is true, only that they would like the information removed.

The full policy is at https://such.forumotion.com/t10246-such-privacy-policy

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

trofimov wrote:After the end of the first day of polling, this is how the results look.

It looks like the current policy, which we arrived at almost two years ago through some robust discussions, is here to stay.

for how long? 4 yrs ? 5 yrs ? or whenever the majority is defeated?

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

trofimov wrote:

truthbetold wrote:pp,
for the ignorant who vote without knowledge( i.e. like me), can you once again state the current policy that was arrived at. after "robust" discussions.

The current policy is that Admin cannot unilaterally edit/delete posts. Admin needs a request from either the poster or the person affected. The person making the request does not need to acknowledge that the information is true, only that they would like the information removed.

The full policy is at https://such.forumotion.com/t10246-such-privacy-policy

Wait... if a poster request that some info/post/thread be removed, that is all that is needed? A poster can feel offended by anything that may be said in a post. This is like taking punitive action based on any PIL.

Suppose I "feel" offended by any post by BW that does not recognize my presence. I hereby "request" that all her posts be removed.

no no no no.... we need a duly-elected committee to overhaul this "policy"

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

trofimov wrote:The current policy is that Admin cannot unilaterally edit/delete posts. Admin needs a request from either the poster or the person affected. The person making the request does not need to acknowledge that the information is true, only that they would like the information removed.

The full policy is at https://such.forumotion.com/t10246-such-privacy-policy

Wait... if a poster request that some info/post/thread be removed, that is all that is needed? A poster can feel offended by anything that may be said in a post. This is like taking punitive action based on any PIL.

Suppose I "feel" offended by any post by BW that does not recognize my presence. I hereby "request" that all her posts be removed.

no no no no.... we need a duly-elected committee to overhaul this "policy"

goodcitizn wrote:Upps: I presume that the policy only applies if someone's private information is revealed i.e., if bw reveals something about you. That said, I am confused about the terminology too.

trofimov wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

trofimov wrote:The current policy is that Admin cannot unilaterally edit/delete posts. Admin needs a request from either the poster or the person affected. The person making the request does not need to acknowledge that the information is true, only that they would like the information removed.

The full policy is at https://such.forumotion.com/t10246-such-privacy-policy

Wait... if a poster request that some info/post/thread be removed, that is all that is needed? A poster can feel offended by anything that may be said in a post. This is like taking punitive action based on any PIL.

Suppose I "feel" offended by any post by BW that does not recognize my presence. I hereby "request" that all her posts be removed.

no no no no.... we need a duly-elected committee to overhaul this "policy"

You misunderstand the policy. It only applies to private information as defined in the policy, and any requests to delete content that do not have any private information (real or purported) will be ignored by admin.

Hellsangel wrote:

trofimov wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

trofimov wrote:The current policy is that Admin cannot unilaterally edit/delete posts. Admin needs a request from either the poster or the person affected. The person making the request does not need to acknowledge that the information is true, only that they would like the information removed.

The full policy is at https://such.forumotion.com/t10246-such-privacy-policy

Wait... if a poster request that some info/post/thread be removed, that is all that is needed? A poster can feel offended by anything that may be said in a post. This is like taking punitive action based on any PIL.

Suppose I "feel" offended by any post by BW that does not recognize my presence. I hereby "request" that all her posts be removed.

no no no no.... we need a duly-elected committee to overhaul this "policy"

You misunderstand the policy. It only applies to private information as defined in the policy, and any requests to delete content that do not have any private information (real or purported) will be ignored by admin.

So porn, legal or illegal is OK?

goodcitizn wrote:

trofimov wrote:

truthbetold wrote:pp,
for the ignorant who vote without knowledge( i.e. like me), can you once again state the current policy that was arrived at. after "robust" discussions.

The current policy is that Admin cannot unilaterally edit/delete posts. Admin needs a request from either the poster or the person affected. The person making the request does not need to acknowledge that the information is true, only that they would like the information removed.

The full policy is at https://such.forumotion.com/t10246-such-privacy-policy

Past discussions on this topic are at:
https://such.forumotion.com/t2718-disclosure-of-posters-personal-information
https://such.forumotion.com/t4792-regarding-hellsangel-s-persistent-usage-of-purported-real-names-of-posters-he-disagrees-with

I quote from my post from August 2011:
User A claims to disclose personal information about user B (by referring to them by a name other than handle B, or by referring to their occupation, place they live, or whatever else B has not openly shared before.) User B does not want user A to continue to do that... User B can ask admin to delete the information, without having to say whether A's claims about B are true or false. Admin will then delete all posts of A where (s)he purports to disclose B's personal information.

Here are a couple of other quotes from that discussion that I agreed with then, and I agree with now:

BW says:
I wish that instead of an "admin" having to delete posts, the posters show some maturity in this matter. It is okay to have differences, make fun of each other, even abuse each other but there are certain lines that shouldn't be crossed and it should be obvious to any educated, cultured adult.

Max says:
i agree with the position that persisting with using someone's real name after they have objected to it is clearly beyond the pale. there's just no justification for it.

So bw says the poster should show some maturity ... that ain't happenin'

Max says there is no justification for the persistent use of someone's real name ... that's happenin'

So what gives?

trofimov wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

trofimov wrote:

truthbetold wrote:pp,
for the ignorant who vote without knowledge( i.e. like me), can you once again state the current policy that was arrived at. after "robust" discussions.

The current policy is that Admin cannot unilaterally edit/delete posts. Admin needs a request from either the poster or the person affected. The person making the request does not need to acknowledge that the information is true, only that they would like the information removed.

The full policy is at https://such.forumotion.com/t10246-such-privacy-policy

Past discussions on this topic are at:
https://such.forumotion.com/t2718-disclosure-of-posters-personal-information
https://such.forumotion.com/t4792-regarding-hellsangel-s-persistent-usage-of-purported-real-names-of-posters-he-disagrees-with

I quote from my post from August 2011:
User A claims to disclose personal information about user B (by referring to them by a name other than handle B, or by referring to their occupation, place they live, or whatever else B has not openly shared before.) User B does not want user A to continue to do that... User B can ask admin to delete the information, without having to say whether A's claims about B are true or false. Admin will then delete all posts of A where (s)he purports to disclose B's personal information.

Here are a couple of other quotes from that discussion that I agreed with then, and I agree with now:

BW says:
I wish that instead of an "admin" having to delete posts, the posters show some maturity in this matter. It is okay to have differences, make fun of each other, even abuse each other but there are certain lines that shouldn't be crossed and it should be obvious to any educated, cultured adult.

Max says:
i agree with the position that persisting with using someone's real name after they have objected to it is clearly beyond the pale. there's just no justification for it.

So bw says the poster should show some maturity ... that ain't happenin'

Max says there is no justification for the persistent use of someone's real name ... that's happenin'

So what gives?

We are dealing with malicious and immature behavior from a few individuals. My recommendation for the remaining members is to ignore their attention-seeking antics.

trofimov wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:
So porn, legal or illegal is OK?

Porn is not a violation of privacy policy. This forum is governed by Forumotion's policies. Those restrict porn and particularly anything illegal.

trofimov wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

trofimov wrote:After the end of the first day of polling, this is how the results look.

It looks like the current policy, which we arrived at almost two years ago through some robust discussions, is here to stay.

for how long? 4 yrs ? 5 yrs ? or whenever the majority is defeated?

The current policy will continue so long as at least one-third of the active voting members here support it. Now that this poll has taken place and votes clearly and openly cast, it will be easy for those who want a more interventionist admin to see the other point of view. Hopefully that reduces demands for intervention when the policy does not support that.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:i have considerable sympathy for the position in which adm. glutimov finds himself. the objective of his repeated appeals for policy changes is to lower his laundry bills, for every time [employer name removed by Admin] is mentioned here, [name removed by admin] p00ps in his pants.