Maybe if you caught up on the thread, you would see that no one is suggesting he is close to the line where we call the cops
Maybe if saying the word ânarcedâ didnât have Trolley saying âsounds like you are cool with child rapistsâ Iâd care about that at the moment.
And the context of the thread is "when is calling the police justified and when is it unjustified - ie narcing. Trolley seems to be offended by the whole concept of narcing, so that puts him down as âthereâs no such thing, itâs always justified to call the police.â
Like yeah, someone read the posts before that and tell me that wasnât out of line.
I think itâs pretty silly to say that itâs inappropriate for me to call the cops after someone says they are on the way to shoot every boomer they see at the Walmart in Bunblefuck, Mississippi, no matter what media they use to tell me that, but here we are.
1 Like
I feel like itâs been made clear that user information should be kept absolutely private unless thereâs some crazy unlikely situation that involves clear, imminent violent threats like a school shooting. So yes, I think calling that ânarcingâ is absurd.
Also, this forum shouldnât have any of your PII because you should be giving it any of your personal info and an IP is at best a wild-ass guess to where you are and you can get a free VPN if youâre worried about that so I really have no idea why people are dying on this hill. No one is sending cops to your house. The mods couldnât even if they wanted to.
You guys have a fucking thread that has guillotining the rich in the thread title and thatâs totally cool because reasons and youâre still acting like this rule matters and will be enforced fairly
Lol
2 Likes
Clovis did that op. It was sarcastic.
Well who is to say someone mentally ill wonât read that and use an 18th century execution device on someone of great wealth???
4 Likes
I see weâre just going to keep going around in circles until somebody stops the merry-go-round.
You (and it seems others) donât seem to grasp that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a rule/policy that is only activated in the most extreme and âobviousâ case (and even then I would still be opposed). Once you allow mods to use their judgment as to when it is appropriate to call law enforcement and pass on personal information on forum users, then you open it up to more probable and insidious bad outcomes. I cannot believe I have to point that out again.
If you put the probability of a mod ever âhavingâ to call law enforcement and pass on private information on a poster at 1 in a million, I would counter by saying that there is a 100% likelihood that many users would be upset that their private information could be passed on to law enforcement and that the mods are reviewing their posts with that possibility in mind.
In case I have to spell it out, the 1 in a million (and then probably multiply that by another 1 in a million that passing on the information actually does some good) is swamped by the deleterious effects of mods having that capability/responsibility on the rest of the forum users.
Just think about how we arrived at this situation. A rogue mod is far far far far far far more likely than the following chain-of-events: a forum user posts an imminent and credible threat & a mod notifies law enforcement passing on private information on the poster & law enforcement stops/mitigates the poster from carrying out the threatened activity.
I think we should simply remove the ânotify law enforcementâ from the proposed rule, vote on the revised rule, and move on. (Any further discussion on a forum policy about (not) notifying law enforcement can be tabled and revisited when mod guidelines are taken up.)
5 Likes
I literally could have and would have done the same over in the old digs. It never happened.
There is also no preventative defense to a rogue mod in this capacity. You have to supply an ip address to communicate with a web site, and mods have in their pockets the means to call the cops at all times. At some point, you have to rely on the judgment of the mods.
1 Like
Setting aside the micro/trolly spat and jmakinâs tears, Iâm pretty sure we are all in agreement on this already.
So, second.
1 Like
Leaving it out is fine with me.
I donât think there were any actual âNoâ votes in the first round of voting, but there were a bunch of âLetâs Discussâ votes.
Thereâs a lot of wiggle room in âmayâ so I wouldnât object.
Basically as far as bannings go, well, if you remember the first thing I did on exiled was try to figure out who is and isnât a member or regular. I donât think regulars should just get banned by mods, maybe not any kind of ban and certainly not perma-banned, without some kind of determination of the will of at least whoever can be bothered to express an opinion. If someone has posted like 12 times ever and no one knows who they are, they are guests imo and can be 86âd if they donât behave with little or no process.
I guess there are some super extreme things that could be special cases that almost certainly will never happen, but if thereâs a ticking time bomb thing, again, a mod can just go rogue.
Donât credibly threaten to murder anyone and your personal info wonât be forwarded.
1 Like
How about:
6. No threats. This includes threats of violence, exposing personal information or harassment. Any post that expresses a direct, indirect, or veiled threat to anyone - whether it be another member, some other individual, or a group in generalâor an incitement to violenceâwill be dealt with severely, may result in an immediate permanent banning. Specific threats of lethal violence (but only those) may be reported to the appropriate law enforcement agency.
[This is a reply to JTâs post (post #128?). I donât know how to add the quote after the fact.]
Is that really the way to do this vote?
Many people, I am supposing, donât really care one way or the other which of the two versions of the Rule is enacted. And those people will ârandomlyâ choose one or the other (studies show a clear âbiasâ toward selecting the first item in such cases). Maybe we need a third option for âEither of the above is fine with meâ.
I think that the version without the language about notifying law enforcement should be presented first (though perhaps I am a trifle biased on that question) since noticing something is present is easier than not noticing something is absent.
Whosnext is completely right of course and i dont want my info being spread being at the discretion of the dipshits who run this place. But theyâd probably do it regardless of the what the rule states, honestly. I honestly dont understand why that language needs to be there anyway.
There are posters on 2+2 who credibly consider us a hate group.