The Round Table (Rational Pagans Forum)

Science & The Supernatural: A Discussion of the World Around us - Based on Science with an Interest in the Supernatural ...
It is currently 03 Aug 2020, 22:18

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Forum rules


Please note: Discussion here should be relatively civil. Attack the post, not the poster. Thanks!



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2009, 22:52 
Offline
Grand High Lord Admiral of Hell
User avatar

Joined: 10 Sep 2007, 13:14
Posts: 5726
Location: Buffalo, NY
Febble wrote:
There is a huge problem with that analogy. If you have a private conversation with someone in a private room, that conversation remains confidential with regard to the participants. Only if one of them divulges the contents is confidentiality broken.

And, what's the difference with a private forum where people don't divulge the information? It's the same thing, isn't it?

Febble wrote:
The internet is different. There is no guarantee of confidentiality. So if you talk about me in private with people you trust not to betray me, or to use your words to hurt me, there is no guarantee that at some future date, people you don't trust (or I don't trust) will have access to the record of your conversation.

And that is has important implications. Conversations on private boards are not like "pillow talk". They are like notes pasted to a private noticeboard that remain visible in perpetuity to anyone granted access.


Okay, so it's like someone keeping a diary or a log of their interactions in the real world. Those are recorded as well.


But you've missed the whole point!

I don't care about the 'confidentiality' issues of a forum. I don't care about the number of people accessing them, or even leaks here. I don't care about the digital archaeological issues here ...


What I want to know is why they should have a right to view things that go on in a 'private' (as meaning non-viewable to non-registered people) forum? You skirted the issue by dealing with the 'confidentiality issue' in your post, but didn't even come close to addressing it.

_________________
If you can't stand the heat, don't tickle the dragon ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2009, 03:19 
Offline
First Circle Initiate

Joined: 17 Dec 2007, 16:38
Posts: 215
Hex wrote:
Febble wrote:
There is a huge problem with that analogy. If you have a private conversation with someone in a private room, that conversation remains confidential with regard to the participants. Only if one of them divulges the contents is confidentiality broken.

And, what's the difference with a private forum where people don't divulge the information? It's the same thing, isn't it?

Febble wrote:
The internet is different. There is no guarantee of confidentiality. So if you talk about me in private with people you trust not to betray me, or to use your words to hurt me, there is no guarantee that at some future date, people you don't trust (or I don't trust) will have access to the record of your conversation.

And that is has important implications. Conversations on private boards are not like "pillow talk". They are like notes pasted to a private noticeboard that remain visible in perpetuity to anyone granted access.


Okay, so it's like someone keeping a diary or a log of their interactions in the real world. Those are recorded as well.


But you've missed the whole point!

I don't care about the 'confidentiality' issues of a forum. I don't care about the number of people accessing them, or even leaks here. I don't care about the digital archaeological issues here ...


What I want to know is why they should have a right to view things that go on in a 'private' (as meaning non-viewable to non-registered people) forum? You skirted the issue by dealing with the 'confidentiality issue' in your post, but didn't even come close to addressing it.


Well, it strikes me that you are missing the (or at an rate an important) point. Discussing other people by a truly confidential channel is inevitable and sometimes right. Discussing other people in a non-confidential channel, to which unspecified people will have access at some point, but to which the person discussed does not, seems to me to be unethical, if the discussion is likely to have any bearing on what happens to them (e.g. disciplinary action of some kind).

Let's say you banned me from here, and I then discovered that the decision had been made on some forum to which I did not have access, but to which some people I knew, some of whom I knew disliked me, did. Or even on some forum to which people I trusted had access now, but to which people I did not trust had access in the future.

I'd be bloody furious.

That's all.

Lizzie


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2009, 04:32 
Offline
First Circle Initiate

Joined: 30 Jan 2008, 13:35
Posts: 115
But Lizzie, do you seriously think that any decisions relating to TR are being made here? Discussions are one thing; decisions are quite another.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2009, 06:31 
Offline
First Circle Initiate

Joined: 17 Dec 2007, 16:38
Posts: 215
DMB wrote:
But Lizzie, do you seriously think that any decisions relating to TR are being made here? Discussions are one thing; decisions are quite another.


Discussions can lead to decisions.

I'm simply agreeing with Nialler that TR staff members shouldn't discuss other members on a non-confidential forum that is not visible to them if the discussion could have any relevance to a staff decision about them.

And a forum with a non-finite membership isn't a confidential forum.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2009, 07:54 
Offline
The Good Man of Nanking

Joined: 30 Oct 2007, 19:03
Posts: 740
Location: Baltimore County, MD
Febble wrote:
DMB wrote:
But Lizzie, do you seriously think that any decisions relating to TR are being made here? Discussions are one thing; decisions are quite another.


Discussions can lead to decisions.

I'm simply agreeing with Nialler that TR staff members shouldn't discuss other members on a non-confidential forum that is not visible to them if the discussion could have any relevance to a staff decision about them.

And a forum with a non-finite membership isn't a confidential forum.


"We don't want people complaining about what's going on at other websites, or defending us, either."

It might not be hypocritical, but it is kind of funny.

Hell, even IIDB didn't ban polite complaining or criticism, or defense of itself, on other sites, by staff members. Still doesn't.

Rob

_________________
Commissioner Anabell Brumford: Do you realize that because of you this city is being overrun by baboons?
Lt. Frank Drebin: Well, isn't that the fault of the voters?


Naked Gun 2 1/2


Last edited by Mediancat on 23 Feb 2009, 08:10, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2009, 08:04 
Offline
Grand Poobah
User avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2007, 11:26
Posts: 5793
Location: Buffalo, NY
Quote:
the decision had been made on some forum to which I did not have access,


That's an issue.

Decision making should be done however the board has rules set up for it. Not on a sperate open or closed board.

gathering information--- well, discussion, In My Opinion, is better done with as wide a range of points of view as possible. In order to be able to see from a different PoV.

If all decisions are made by the usual suspects, soon that view will be narrowed to where it's no longer useful.

Does that make sense?

_________________
Chloride and Sodium: Two terribly dangerous substances that taste great together!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2009, 08:06 
Offline
Grand High Lord Admiral of Hell
User avatar

Joined: 10 Sep 2007, 13:14
Posts: 5726
Location: Buffalo, NY
Febble wrote:
Well, it strikes me that you are missing the (or at an rate an important) point. Discussing other people by a truly confidential channel is inevitable and sometimes right. Discussing other people in a non-confidential channel, to which unspecified people will have access at some point, but to which the person discussed does not, seems to me to be unethical, if the discussion is likely to have any bearing on what happens to them (e.g. disciplinary action of some kind).

Let's say you banned me from here, and I then discovered that the decision had been made on some forum to which I did not have access, but to which some people I knew, some of whom I knew disliked me, did. Or even on some forum to which people I trusted had access now, but to which people I did not trust had access in the future.

I'd be bloody furious.

That's all.

Lizzie


Right. You'd be furious if you found out. And if some of the people who disliked you had access. Or if ownership of the forum changed to someone you didn't trust.


You'd be upset. You wouldn't think it's fair.

I get that.


But why should you (or anyone else) have a right to read/ or have access to the area where stuff was written/ discussed, if it isn't open to the general public?

As I said above, I don't care about true or false or perpetual confidentiality in this, because that has no bearing on the core question I asked in the OP. You cannot be guaranteed that in real life. People talk, they take down notes, they record each other in private, they change their minds.


I'm still not getting it other than 'it would make you furious'. There's plenty in life that makes me furious. Do I have a right to demand that the world to rearrange its rules so I won't be? :dontknow:

_________________
If you can't stand the heat, don't tickle the dragon ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2009, 10:57 
Offline
First Circle Initiate

Joined: 17 Dec 2007, 16:38
Posts: 215
Hex wrote:
Febble wrote:
Well, it strikes me that you are missing the (or at an rate an important) point. Discussing other people by a truly confidential channel is inevitable and sometimes right. Discussing other people in a non-confidential channel, to which unspecified people will have access at some point, but to which the person discussed does not, seems to me to be unethical, if the discussion is likely to have any bearing on what happens to them (e.g. disciplinary action of some kind).

Let's say you banned me from here, and I then discovered that the decision had been made on some forum to which I did not have access, but to which some people I knew, some of whom I knew disliked me, did. Or even on some forum to which people I trusted had access now, but to which people I did not trust had access in the future.

I'd be bloody furious.

That's all.

Lizzie


Right. You'd be furious if you found out. And if some of the people who disliked you had access. Or if ownership of the forum changed to someone you didn't trust.


You'd be upset. You wouldn't think it's fair.

I get that.


But why should you (or anyone else) have a right to read/ or have access to the area where stuff was written/ discussed, if it isn't open to the general public?

As I said above, I don't care about true or false or perpetual confidentiality in this, because that has no bearing on the core question I asked in the OP. You cannot be guaranteed that in real life. People talk, they take down notes, they record each other in private, they change their minds.


I'm still not getting it other than 'it would make you furious'. There's plenty in life that makes me furious. Do I have a right to demand that the world to rearrange its rules so I won't be? :dontknow:


I don't think anyone has a right to view the site. I do think that there are ethical issues that arise with regard to talking about other people on a non-confidential, but non-visible site.

But that's an issue that those doing the talking need to confront, not those doing the site hosting.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2009, 11:09 
Offline
The Good Man of Nanking

Joined: 30 Oct 2007, 19:03
Posts: 740
Location: Baltimore County, MD
Febble wrote:
I don't think anyone has a right to view the site. I do think that there are ethical issues that arise with regard to talking about other people on a non-confidential, but non-visible site.


No, there aren't, unless what they're talking about rises to the level of criminal conspiracy. If I want to say, in private or semi-private, to BigBadBob that Rorschach's Blot is a poopiehead, there are no ethical issues involved, and Rorschach's Blot has no right to know that I'm saying it.

And BigBadBob and I are doing nothing wrong in having the conversation.

Rob

_________________
Commissioner Anabell Brumford: Do you realize that because of you this city is being overrun by baboons?
Lt. Frank Drebin: Well, isn't that the fault of the voters?


Naked Gun 2 1/2


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2009, 11:16 
Offline
Acolyte

Joined: 08 Feb 2009, 22:57
Posts: 45
Mediancat wrote:
Febble wrote:
I don't think anyone has a right to view the site. I do think that there are ethical issues that arise with regard to talking about other people on a non-confidential, but non-visible site.


No, there aren't, unless what they're talking about rises to the level of criminal conspiracy. If I want to say, in private or semi-private, to BigBadBob that Rorschach's Blot is a poopiehead, there are no ethical issues involved, and Rorschach's Blot has no right to know that I'm saying it.

And BigBadBob and I are doing nothing wrong in having the conversation.

Rob


Can we just stop with the pseudonyms? If you are committed to the position that what you are doing is right, grow a pair and say, "Pavlov's Dog is a mendacious cocksucker."

Or are you just providing evidence that at some level you do find private gossip unseemly?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2009, 11:24 
Offline
Grand Poobah
User avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2007, 11:26
Posts: 5793
Location: Buffalo, NY
Febble wrote:

I don't think anyone has a right to view the site. I do think that there are ethical issues that arise with regard to talking about other people on a non-confidential, but non-visible site.

But that's an issue that those doing the talking need to confront, not those doing the site hosting.


I think there's been some reason to think people have a right to see and respond to everything about them. As if that is even possible.

So saying that that 'right' doesn't exist is a big step in this discussion.

Now, you brought up a good point--- if your boss made a decision about you without talking to you, the boss is an ass. Not who else he talked to, not where else he talked to, etc.

You are 100% correct in that, In My Opinion.

No one in power should make a decision on a subordinate without researching everything. Probably even that co-worker who wants to stab you in the back.

I think you personally did go to several places to try to get the broadest view possible to go back to TR with. In My Opinion, that was smart. Especially as an admin in a bad situation. But then, that's not decision making, that's information gathering. Is that ok on a closed site?

A completely separate issue is cross db gossip. If this talk is going to continue, I recommend that everyone take a step back and figure out exactly what issue they want to discuss.

/netmommy

_________________
Chloride and Sodium: Two terribly dangerous substances that taste great together!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2009, 11:38 
Offline
The Good Man of Nanking

Joined: 30 Oct 2007, 19:03
Posts: 740
Location: Baltimore County, MD
rigorist wrote:
Mediancat wrote:
Febble wrote:
I don't think anyone has a right to view the site. I do think that there are ethical issues that arise with regard to talking about other people on a non-confidential, but non-visible site.


No, there aren't, unless what they're talking about rises to the level of criminal conspiracy. If I want to say, in private or semi-private, to BigBadBob that Rorschach's Blot is a poopiehead, there are no ethical issues involved, and Rorschach's Blot has no right to know that I'm saying it.

And BigBadBob and I are doing nothing wrong in having the conversation.

Rob


Can we just stop with the pseudonyms? If you are committed to the position that what you are doing is right, grow a pair and say, "Pavlov's Dog is a mendacious cocksucker."

Or are you just providing evidence that at some level you do find private gossip unseemly?


No, I simply picked his name to change around as an example because I didn't want to use the real ones as an example any more, to be sure that people wouldn't take "Let's say I call Pavlov's Dog an SOB" as a passive-aggressive way of actually calling him an SOB. If I have anything to say directly about PD, I'm capable of doing it.

Rob

_________________
Commissioner Anabell Brumford: Do you realize that because of you this city is being overrun by baboons?
Lt. Frank Drebin: Well, isn't that the fault of the voters?


Naked Gun 2 1/2


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2009, 12:29 
Offline
Grand High Lord Admiral of Hell
User avatar

Joined: 10 Sep 2007, 13:14
Posts: 5726
Location: Buffalo, NY
Febble wrote:
I don't think anyone has a right to view the site. I do think that there are ethical issues that arise with regard to talking about other people on a non-confidential, but non-visible site.

But that's an issue that those doing the talking need to confront, not those doing the site hosting.


Okay, so to my initial question of why should people have a right to read/access that stuff, it looks to me like you come down on the same side I do.

So, instead you've moved to making it the responsibility of the posters in the 'closed/ unviewable' fora to disclose everything they've been discussing to those they've been discussing?

But if the hosting style doesn't require it, or even forbids it, are you advocating that 'ethical' (according to your view) posters wouldn't post such stuff in those fora, <Faith-in-Buffy> because it's wrong </Faith-in-Buffy>?

And then,
  • Is there some code that these posters should adhere to, as to what is something that requires disclosure, versus what doesn't?
  • Should you disclose another poster's posts if the first poster isn't willing to disclose it themselves?
  • Is that disclosure more important than privacy agreements made upon registration to the forum?

_________________
If you can't stand the heat, don't tickle the dragon ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2009, 14:48 
Offline
Acolyte

Joined: 07 Jan 2009, 17:01
Posts: 46
Febble wrote:
Discussing other people in a non-confidential channel, to which unspecified people will have access at some point, but to which the person discussed does not, seems to me to be unethical, if the discussion is likely to have any bearing on what happens to them (e.g. disciplinary action of some kind).

Let's say you banned me from here, and I then discovered that the decision had been made on some forum to which I did not have access, but to which some people I knew, some of whom I knew disliked me, did. Or even on some forum to which people I trusted had access now, but to which people I did not trust had access in the future.


Febble wrote:
I'm simply agreeing with Nialler that TR staff members shouldn't discuss other members on a non-confidential forum that is not visible to them if the discussion could have any relevance to a staff decision about them.

And a forum with a non-finite membership isn't a confidential forum.


I really don't understand how you can argue this and still support the existence of a private staff forum on TR to discuss problems involving member privacy. How can you justify one but not the other? Is talking about a member of TR in the TR staff forum unethical because that forum is non-confidential and may be viewed by different people later on? The TR staff forum meets the requirements you outlined: it's non-confidential in that multiple people have access and in that membership is non-finite. It's something that ordinary members can't access. It's a place where discussions have bearing on what happens to a member. Is it suddenly ethical because it's on one board and not a separate board?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group