Making it Better: The future of WP

Post Reply New Topic

An even better idea: people in positions of trust on a support site should actually support members, be trustworthy, be respectful, and be accountable for their actions.

No, that is the question that I ask, nothing more.

While I agree that this is a good idea, I am also concerned about people making themselves targets by over-sharing personal stuff like criminal activity, "immoral" behavior, names, addresses, and intimate data or images.  While I hate the term "asking for it", there have been so many examples of exploitation of personal data in the news that I have to wonder why people still over-share their personal and intimate lives.

A little more personal responsibility would go a long way toward eliminating opportunities for bullies to exploit.

I agree with this. That's why I am extremely cautious about disclosing any personal information online, and why I would only share confidential information with the moderator team on a need-to-know basis, if it was for the purpose of receiving support, or related to helping our site security overall.



I would rephrase this:

"A little more personal responsibility from people entrusted with our confidential information, would eliminate opportunities for members to be bullied or exploited."

Sometimes we have to share information in confidence that we don’t want to be public. Doctors, lawyers, therapists, and others all have codes that they will keep certain information private, unless there are certain pressing necessities (generally a threat to life). These codes make it possible for them to do the job.

It is the same with moderators. There are some aspects of the job where we depend upon frank information from other users, who will only do so if they have confidence that their private information will be handled responsibly.

Obviously there may be extreme fringe cases where we may need to pass information on to medical or legal authorities (although this has never happened to me). But we need to be trusted, and anything that erodes that trust is damaging and should be avoided.

This is the basic idea behind "Disclosure Laws" that require medical, religious, and psychology workers to report any client who confesses to murder, rape, arson, et cetera.

You asked me personally if what you imagined was what I wanted ~ rather than just asking if your imagined situation would lead to getting your post deleted and another board warning being the result, which it would not be as expressed differences of opinion are not attacks but 'disagreements':

1.) The act, state, or fact of disagreeing.

2.) lack of agreement; diversity; unlikeness: a disagreement of colors.

3.) Difference of opinion; dissent.

4.) Quarrel; dissension; argument.

If though disagreements become disrespectful arguments involving belittling or discriminatory attacks (upon someone's commentary or their character) ~ deletions and warnings should result.

So when it comes to other people people's desires being imagined and then their integrity being as such questioned ~ that is normally associated with the role of a devil's advocate in debates, and it is required as such that people are asked to be or accepted as being a devil's advocate before engaging ~ otherwise it can appear that characteristic aspersions are being unnecessarily cast upon a person's moral and ethical integrity.

Hence me drawing attention to the fact that attacks upon people's commentaries and their individual character should not be permitted ~ at all, whereas criticism of commentaries and only commentaries is acceptable and necessary ~ when they are socially unacceptable, as in terms of involving sexism, ageism, racism, ableism or any other form of elitism or wrong doing.

We have data protection act, confidentiality laws, The Autism act, laws to protect the vulnerable, laws which protect children, and all sorts of others here in UK. I imagine there are plenty in America.

Just because we are on the net does not mean these laws only apply to professionals.

If you are handling people's personal information including personal history then it would help if mods had an idea of guidelines to help keep everyone safe.

You can't possibly know every law there is but an awareness of what might apply here would help.

This is the second code of conduct for Wrong Planet:

2. Personal attacks.
This includes insinuation, ridicule and personal insults, regardless of whether direct or indirect. Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but attacking the person making the comments is not.

Which could otherwise be worded to instead disallow attacks, such perhaps as follows:

2. Personal attacks.
Attacking people’s comments or them personally is not acceptable. This includes insinuation, ridicule and personal insults, regardless of whether direct or indirect. Criticising an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but criticising or attacking the person making the comments is not.

As such your bases would be covered and everyone’s responsibility would be established, would it not?

Last edited by Deepthought 7 on 27 Aug 2020, 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If I leave a diamond in my car it's my fault I left it in the car if my car is broken into and stolen. It's not the fault of the thief.

If I go somewhere and I'm robbed it's my fault once again b/c I shouldn't have went into a bad neighborhood. It's not the fault of the robber.

If a woman is raped it's her fault for not taking proper precautions and not the fault of the rapist.

Why is there so much concentration on blaming the victim instead of putting the blame on the perp?

Why have laws and a criminal justice system at all?

What are you saying here exactly?

I actually understand now what feminists mean now "teach men not to rape." In other words quit blaming and hounding the victim so much. Ya, take precautions but if something happens put blame on where it is due, the perp and not the victim.

I would of thought that in terms of written content ~ anything that is written under the title of "Private Message" is by default just confidential material, and not therefore to be published or alluded to without prior written consent or agreed upon conditions.

If you are providing a service of some kind regardless whether paid or unpaid, you are to provide that in a competent way, this includes people in positions of power or authority over others. Data protection applies to everyone who is privy to others information. There does not have to be a written or verbal contract.

"Attacking people’s comments" contradicts with "Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable."

Posting an opinion is a comment and so is when you post your belief and philosophy.

If I leave my smart phone or my Nintendo Switch in my car out in the open, I am making myself vulnerable to a car break in and a victim of theft.

If I leave anything in the front yard; lawn mower, yard tools, I am making myself vulnerable to theft.


It is my duty to reduce risks so I will put everything away when I am done or taking a twenty minute break. I will put my valuables in the glove box and lock it and lock my car or I take it with me in my purse. At home, I leave nothing valuable in my car I don't want taken.


I do not understand why people are so against people taking precautions and making it harder for criminals to do their crimes. I have even seen people online make videos or do articles about how to keep your house from being broken into and they tell you how they break into your house so you can make it harder for them. They even said if your house is secured and you have nothing in your yard for them to use and everything is locked, and you have motion lights, they go look for another house that is vulnerable and won't bother your house at all.


I mean are people really telling me to go ahead and wander off to unsafe places at night, risk getting raped, after all it will be the rapist's fault. Sorry, but I do not want to put myself at risk.

I do not want to lose my Nintendo Switch or my smart phone. I do not want stuff taken from my front yard. My husband does not want to lose his weed stuff so he always takes it in the house when he is done with it outside.

I mean we even have identity theft protection to make it harder for people to steal someone's identity.


Why do we not have anything to tell thieves how not to be a thief, because they do not care, they will do it anyway so we will mind as well make it harder for them to steal.

Last edited by League_Girl on 27 Aug 2020, 7:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I was not referring to the receiving of confidential data from a first party by a second party ~ but to the transmission or circulation of the first party's data from the second party to third parties in the public or private domains that are not included in the confidentiality agreement. In which case written 'consent' (yes feel free) or 'instructions' (to anonymise or edit) would be required from the first party by the second, before publishing. Otherwise people tend to feel exposed, embarrassed, humiliated or violated and such like.

Here are three things I think are simultaneously true.

1. It is good to take precautions so as not to be an easy target of a crime.

2. When a crime happens, the criminal should be held responsible.

3. It is wrong to blame the victim of a crime.

Arguing for one of these points does not automatically equate to arguing against another.