Page 160 of 162 [ 2587 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162  Next

cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,953

27 Aug 2020, 7:08 pm

Carpeta wrote:
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.


Agreed!



Temeraire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2017
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,509
Location: Wiltshire, U.K.

27 Aug 2020, 7:08 pm

Deepthought 7 wrote:
Temeraire wrote:
Deepthought 7 wrote:
Temeraire wrote:
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.

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.

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.


The transmission of private info is worse if you do not have permission. I have experienced all sorts of transgressions made by people who are in positions of trust and they have no idea they are doing it. Carers do it all the time, they have no idea that talking about other clients are a big no no. Managers and supervisors. People leave paperwork exposed on car seats. Therapists talking about clients but not being aware of how many people might be able to identify because of too much info being given without permission.

Forums are very open to the public so very clear rules and guidelines are needed for both members and mods and admin as I have said before.

We need to protect the vulnerable here and those who just wouldn't know they are putting themselves at risk of psychological harm.

And lets not forget plain old fashion decency. Laws were born from morals.



Deepthought 7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2018
Posts: 916
Location: United Kingdom

27 Aug 2020, 7:11 pm

League_Girl wrote:
Deepthought 7 wrote:
alex wrote:
Deepthought 7 wrote:
alex wrote:
I came here with the intention of trying to help fix the issues I saw and tried my best to come up with a set of rules that reflected anti-racist principles and the pushback to this is absolutely shocking to me. I expected some dissent but the amount of people who are defending hate is just too hard for me to handle. And the attacks and bullying of me on this thread just because of me calling out racism and explaining my views are really hurtful.

The main problem is not 'racism' or 'tribalism' ~ but the permitted 'attacks' and 'bullying' that are enabled by the codes of conduct here. :pale:

A person's narrative or commentary can be for example in part or whole psychologically frameworked into the networks of their physiology, and hence the pain that was felt as being 'really hurtful' when your narrative on 'racism' was as permitted . . . attacked! 8O

If mild attacks remain acceptable as being exemplars for permitted conduct as a primary step, when pushes come to shoves then as have been allowed ~ secondary steps will be more severe attacks, and hence this website is not in principle a support website for vulnerable individuals. :cry:

Therefore in principle Wrong Planet is a social website that permits at best attacks on people's narratives and at worst facilitates attacks upon their persons, in concrete factual terms. :?:

The basic problem then seemingly is that by analogy 'limbs' (as representing members) are getting effectively 'amputated' (banned) or left to 'drop-off' (depart); whilst the causative 'infection' (the law for attack) just gets ignored as being the initiatory problem! 8O


Agreed. We need to focus on stopping bullying here. I hadn't realized the full extent of that issue and now see why a lot of people are worried that my guidelines would enable people to bully.

I certainly don't want that to happen and have started thinking about creating another set of guidelines that makes it clear you can't use any rule as justification to attack people or make them feel unsafe. I've been trying to dialogue with a few members one on one to see how we can make that happen but feel free to use this thread to brainstorm ideas about that.

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?



"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.

Stating that "Attacking people's comments or them personally is not acceptable" does not appear to contradict "Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is not acceptable" being that ~ as you state, "an opinion is a comment and so is when you post your belief and philosophy" ~ with neither as such being permitted to be attacked; only criticised if unacceptable.

It seems the missing out of the word 'not' from your second quotation is the only factor that made a contradiction appear apparent, perhaps?


_________________
I reserve the right or is it left to at very least be wrong :)


Archmage Arcane
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 13 Jun 2019
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 448
Location: Connecticut, USA

27 Aug 2020, 7:21 pm

Just spent the afternoon and part of the evening reading the last 30 or so pages.

I came in past where Alex reappeared. I hope he remains engaged here. We absolutely do need more mods. Rather than new rules, we need equitable enforcement of the existing rules.

Hopefully those members who are considering leaving remain. We've lost a lot of good people.

I'm still trying to figure out who I agree with on what argument, but maybe it doesn't matter. I see Alex's points and I see the points of those calling him out. Not sure it's goung to be productive to antagonize Alex. Calmly point out any differences you may have with him. You might want to remember, however, that it's his site. That said, he's been away for quite a while.

Alex: Please don't rage-quit your own site. :)

My suggestions, some or all of which have been mentioned:

Leave politics in PPR.

Also, leave political animosity in PPR.

Leave personal animosity off the site, please.

If anyone attacks anyone else in the Haven, woe be unto them.

As to L&D, if you don't like reading about 30-year-old guys crying about their lives being over and they've never had a date (I'm NOT making fun of anyone here!), don't read the thread. People in that mental state do not need snippy comments to exacerbate what may already be a dangerous level of depression. Lay off.

I have a blast on this site, but it gets depressing even for me to read some of the petty stuff going on. Hopefully the mods can provide more redirection in these matters.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

27 Aug 2020, 7:25 pm

What I have been asking for, over months, is that people don't address the poster ("you're racist"\"I think you're a racist") when they disagree with another person's post, nor attack the post ("That was racist"\"I think that was racist"), but instead address the post - If you feel there was an issue with it, explain the reason, but also justify how you come to the conclusion about it "I think that could be seen as racist because....".

Unfortunately, too often, the responce when asking for the justification has been "I can't be bothered"\"I don't have time", or even "I have told others before" with no details to allow the person so addressed the ability to research\confirm, nor to explain a possible mis-understanding\poor choice of words.

Similarly, the "reichwingers" descriptor, or claims\insinuations that conservatives (or Trump voters) are "nazi's"\"white supremecists"\<insert pejorative> has been permitted for months (possibly years), even when specifically against the site rules (including in PPR), leaving a large portion of the members\potential members feeling that they are not welcome here. These claims\statements are always in the form of a blanket statement, with no justification\explanation as to why the poster may believe this, and when complained about are intentionally mischaracterized as "people being snowflakes". There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with policies, etc. from a political party, but attacking anyone who supports the party as a result, while not providing details to support your belief.

People don't necessarily vote for a party on a single policy, but rather based on the whole collection of policies. For example, each party has 100 policies:
Party 1 has 30 areas a voter strongly agrees with and 40 they strongly disagree with
Party 2 has 20 areas a voter strongly agrees with and 25 they strongly disagree with
Just because a person sees a policy as being bad does not mean it was in the small portion that another voter strongly agrees with - it may be in the "strongly disagree portion", but the overall agree:disagree ratio still has them favor the party with that policy, not because of it, but in spite of it, and so shouldn't be attacked as a result of the policy.



alex
Developer
Developer

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,214
Location: Beverly Hills, CA

27 Aug 2020, 7:34 pm

This is great advice all around.

Archmage Arcane wrote:
Just spent the afternoon and part of the evening reading the last 30 or so pages.

I came in past where Alex reappeared. I hope he remains engaged here. We absolutely do need more mods. Rather than new rules, we need equitable enforcement of the existing rules.

Hopefully those members who are considering leaving remain. We've lost a lot of good people.

I'm still trying to figure out who I agree with on what argument, but maybe it doesn't matter. I see Alex's points and I see the points of those calling him out. Not sure it's goung to be productive to antagonize Alex. Calmly point out any differences you may have with him. You might want to remember, however, that it's his site. That said, he's been away for quite a while.

Alex: Please don't rage-quit your own site. :)

My suggestions, some or all of which have been mentioned:

Leave politics in PPR.

Also, leave political animosity in PPR.

Leave personal animosity off the site, please.

If anyone attacks anyone else in the Haven, woe be unto them.

As to L&D, if you don't like reading about 30-year-old guys crying about their lives being over and they've never had a date (I'm NOT making fun of anyone here!), don't read the thread. People in that mental state do not need snippy comments to exacerbate what may already be a dangerous level of depression. Lay off.

I have a blast on this site, but it gets depressing even for me to read some of the petty stuff going on. Hopefully the mods can provide more redirection in these matters.


_________________
I'm Alex Plank, the founder of Wrong Planet. Follow me (Alex Plank) on Blue Sky: https://bsky.app/profile/alexplank.bsky.social


League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,205
Location: Pacific Northwest

27 Aug 2020, 8:14 pm

Speaking of private information, I have had users from here share PMs with me that was written by someone and it was about me.

I would ask what was said about me and instead my online buddy would post the whole entire message in our chat.

So put in mind, if you wish go talk about a user here, what you are saying isn't really private.

If you found out someone had talked about you in PM, wouldn't you want to know what they had said about you?


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


alex
Developer
Developer

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,214
Location: Beverly Hills, CA

27 Aug 2020, 8:18 pm

People can be pretty mean when talking about others behind their backs. I'm sure there are things people have said that I wouldn't want to be sent to me. Or especially actual conversations I wouldn't want to eavesdrop on


_________________
I'm Alex Plank, the founder of Wrong Planet. Follow me (Alex Plank) on Blue Sky: https://bsky.app/profile/alexplank.bsky.social


Deepthought 7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2018
Posts: 916
Location: United Kingdom

27 Aug 2020, 9:16 pm

Temeraire wrote:
Deepthought 7 wrote:
Temeraire wrote:
Deepthought 7 wrote:
Temeraire wrote:
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.

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.

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.


The transmission of private info is worse if you do not have permission.

In stating that the "transmission of private info is worse if you do not have permission" it seems to describe data sharing under the confidentiality agreement as being to some extent by comparison bad, but not as bad as unpermitted data sharing. Permitted or qualified data sharing though is deemed essential under all confidentiality agreements involving do no harm or maintain safety protocols.

If someone states for example that they are going to harm themselves and or others, third parties in the emergency services must be informed for the benefit of all concerned. Also for example ~ third parties who act as second parties to the first at different stages, such as health care workers must be informed of progress involving treatment plans and care provisions.

Temeraire wrote:
I have experienced all sorts of transgressions made by people who are in positions of trust and they have no idea they are doing it. Carers do it all the time, they have no idea that talking about other clients are a big no no. Managers and supervisors. People leave paperwork exposed on car seats. Therapists talking about clients but not being aware of how many people might be able to identify because of too much info being given without permission.

Cringe factor ten ~ that sort of thing in each case needs to be reported to the appropriate authorities, which in the UK is:

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

Temeraire wrote:
Forums are very open to the public so very clear rules and guidelines are needed for both members and mods and admin as I have said before.

We need to protect the vulnerable here and those who just wouldn't know they are putting themselves at risk of psychological harm.

And lets not forget plain old fashion decency. Laws were born from morals.

No forgetting of plain old fashioned decency here ~ only I am more a laws are born from personal morals and social ethics type myself, but that's more a topic for the Politics, Philosophy and Religion forum. Here we are discussing getting the codes of conduct sorted and having members and moderators apply them more diligently to make Wrong Planet better now and in the future, being that as you state we need to protect the vulnerable here from psychological harm, given that physiological harm can as such from which result. :cry:


_________________
I reserve the right or is it left to at very least be wrong :)


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,750
Location: Stendec

27 Aug 2020, 9:18 pm

Quote:
... 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.[/b]As such your bases would be covered and everyone’s responsibility would be established, would it not?
The first sentence is negated by the last sentence.  Which one expresses the true opinion?

Attacking the person is unacceptable -- I accept that.

Attacking the person's comments -- that's fair game; even Alex's comments are being challenged with impunity.

If attacking the person's comments is deemed unacceptable, then no one would be allowed to post anything that would contradict or expose as false even one iota of data.  This would either open the floodgates of spurious comments of execrable quality, or create a land-grab situation where the first post on any topic would be the last on that topic unless everyone agrees with the first post -- leaving no room for dissent, correction, or divergent perspectives -- and WrongPlanet becomesnothing more than an echo chamber.

It seems to me that denying people their right to disagree implies someone is, or many someones are asserting their control over every narrative, and they cannot or will not tolerate loss or infringement of that control.

And if anyone truly believes that attacking a person's comments is unacceptable, then these statements should stand unchallenged; but if anyone does challenge it, then that very action proves the idea stated in the previous sentence (the one in bold).


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

27 Aug 2020, 9:36 pm

magz wrote:
For me, it's not so much about Sly himself. He just happened to be in a wrong place on a wrong time with "wrong" political opinions on Wrong Planet.

It's about the tone of discussion set here. Is it okay to be judgemental from the position of power or are we all obliged to listen to each other carefully and at least try to understand what those we disagree with have to say?


To some, it is simply a power game.
Point-scoring.
Some aren't interested in a civil discussion.
Someone else might even describe what they do as trolling. 8)



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

27 Aug 2020, 9:40 pm

Fnord wrote:
This thread has deteriorated into gossip.  It reminds me of a bunch of old church ladies arguing over who is at fault in the Pastor's divorce, when not one of them is related to the Pastor or his soon-to-be ex-wife.

I am not saying that any of you actually is an "old church lady"; but is there really nothing else to discuss?

Do you actually think people are going to listen to your advice here? 8O



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

27 Aug 2020, 9:41 pm

Feyokien wrote:
The current atmosphere is not okay, but the conversation is still ongoing. The forum would be lesser without you blooiejagwa. :)


Everyone chant!:

Save the blooiejagwa!
Save the blooiejagwa!
Save the blooiejagwa!
:ninja:

kraftiekortie wrote:
Yep. I would miss the avatar, Blooie.....and your perspective, too.


The TRULY adorable are hard to come by. 8)



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

27 Aug 2020, 9:54 pm

Brictoria wrote:
What I have been asking for, over months, is that people don't address the poster ("you're racist"\"I think you're a racist") when they disagree with another person's post, nor attack the post ("That was racist"\"I think that was racist"), but instead address the post - If you feel there was an issue with it, explain the reason, but also justify how you come to the conclusion about it "I think that could be seen as racist because....".

Unfortunately, too often, the responce when asking for the justification has been "I can't be bothered"\"I don't have time", or even "I have told others before" with no details to allow the person so addressed the ability to research\confirm, nor to explain a possible mis-understanding\poor choice of words.

Similarly, the "reichwingers" descriptor, or claims\insinuations that conservatives (or Trump voters) are "nazi's"\"white supremecists"\<insert pejorative> has been permitted for months (possibly years), even when specifically against the site rules (including in PPR), leaving a large portion of the members\potential members feeling that they are not welcome here. These claims\statements are always in the form of a blanket statement, with no justification\explanation as to why the poster may believe this, and when complained about are intentionally mischaracterized as "people being snowflakes". There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with policies, etc. from a political party, but attacking anyone who supports the party as a result, while not providing details to support your belief.

People don't necessarily vote for a party on a single policy, but rather based on the whole collection of policies. For example, each party has 100 policies:
Party 1 has 30 areas a voter strongly agrees with and 40 they strongly disagree with
Party 2 has 20 areas a voter strongly agrees with and 25 they strongly disagree with
Just because a person sees a policy as being bad does not mean it was in the small portion that another voter strongly agrees with - it may be in the "strongly disagree portion", but the overall agree:disagree ratio still has them favor the party with that policy, not because of it, but in spite of it, and so shouldn't be attacked as a result of the policy.


Erm,
Yup. 8)



Deepthought 7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2018
Posts: 916
Location: United Kingdom

27 Aug 2020, 10:50 pm

Fnord wrote:
Quote:
... 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.[/b]As such your bases would be covered and everyone’s responsibility would be established, would it not?
The first sentence is negated by the last sentence.  Which one expresses the true opinion?

One reinforces the validity of the other from first letter to the last full stop as being one opinion. What would you suggest in terms of written structure?

Fnord wrote:
[Attacking the person is unacceptable -- I accept that.

Attacking the person's comments -- that's fair game; even Alex's comments are being challenged with impunity.

Attacking a person's comments though has lead to painful repercussions for many as Alex himself reported:

Alex wrote:
And the attacks and bullying of me on this thread just because of me calling out racism and explaining my views are really hurtful.

This is not as such acceptable for anyone.

Fnord wrote:
If attacking the person's comments is deemed unacceptable, then no one would be allowed to post anything that would contradict or expose as false even one iota of data.  This would either open the floodgates of spurious comments of execrable quality, or create a land-grab situation where the first post on any topic would be the last on that topic unless everyone agrees with the first post -- leaving no room for dissent, correction, or divergent perspectives -- and WrongPlanet becomesnothing more than an echo chamber.

It seems to me that denying people their right to disagree implies someone is, or many someones are asserting their control over every narrative, and they cannot or will not tolerate loss or infringement of that control.

And if anyone truly believes that attacking a person's comments is unacceptable, then these statements should stand unchallenged; but if anyone does challenge it, then that very action proves the idea stated in the previous sentence (the one in bold).

Not attacking unreasonable commentary but instead criticising it ~ does not amount to it going unchallenged, in that lesser or greater extents of criticism are used to challenge unacceptable statements to the appropriate degree.


_________________
I reserve the right or is it left to at very least be wrong :)


Deepthought 7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2018
Posts: 916
Location: United Kingdom

28 Aug 2020, 12:34 am

IsabellaLinton wrote:
Fnord wrote:
IsabellaLinton wrote:
One rule I'd like to see enforced: Private and confidential information shared in trust between members and moderators, or any two people, should not be referenced or repeated to other members directly or indirectly, as jokes or in any other way, whether to shame the person as a passive-aggressive defamation of their character, as an abuse of power and confidence, or even for fun. I think such instances should have a zero tolerance policy, especially if it's not the person's first infraction.
An even better idea would be to share nothing in private that you would not share in public.


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.

I just find it mind boggling weird that anybody should have to mention that people in positions of trust on a support site 'should' support members in a trustworthy, respectable and accountable way, as they are just standard 'that's how it is' basic procedures on support websites for vulnerable individuals. This place would be utterly amazing if it actually was a support website equally as much as it is a social website! I mean if that were actually so! :heart:


_________________
I reserve the right or is it left to at very least be wrong :)