Proposed rule against discussing whether or not you want to rape anyone's children

[Sleeps With Butterflies]

Originally Posted by Annoying Retard Nonny

More like your momma

I will find out where you live and beat you until you're DEAD, Annoying Retard Nonny.

D-e-a-d DEAD.

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by Carol Stream

You mean like Dio's entire posting history?

Actually Dio's posted some good, solid posts here*. You, on the other (man)hand, have never contributed a single post worth thinking about to either board.


*and this is me saying this.

[Dragonlady]

Originally Posted by Sleeps With Butterflies

I will find out where you live and beat you until you're DEAD, Annoying Retard Nonny.

D-e-a-d DEAD.

Aw! Come on Sleeps, you can do better!

Beat you into next week.

Beat you so bad your KIDS have bruises.

Beat you so bad, you'd have to get better to die.

Really, I expected so much more.

[Argyle Sock]

Originally Posted by Cricetus

Say whatever you want about Ken -- he can take it.

The evidence leans against his ability to "take it".

[Sleeps With Butterflies]

It's hard to work up good RAEG when I'm a bit... ummm... sailing from making um-smokum-signals.

[Annoying Retard Nonny]

Illegal drug use reported.

[Khampelf]

Originally Posted by Annoying Retard Nonny

Illegal drug use reported.

To whom?

.

[Annoying Retard Nonny]

Originally Posted by Khampelf

To whom?

.

YOUR MUM

[Zeener Diode]

Evahbody must get stoned!

[Khampelf]

Originally Posted by Annoying Retard Nonny

YOUR MUM

That's kind of double useless.

My Mom died of a crack overdose.

I think we need a new rule...

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by Sleeps With Butterflies

It's hard to work up good RAEG when I'm a bit... ummm... sailing from making um-smokum-signals.

That's so racist. My proud Native American heritage demands justice.

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by Jeff

That's so racist. My proud Native American heritage demands justice.

You wanna scalp her?

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by severe delays

Someone went researching, huh? Researching what, exactly. The child has no internet access. She cannot have put her details online without a caregiver authorising that. And even if everything down to her shoe size was online that would not link her to the nickname adopted by a random person using one specific messageboard on the internet. So if someone has made specific threats against your child then it is because you or another caregiver breached her privacy.

Now I'm not saying this to have a go at you, despite your rudeness. My point is that you can't have everything. If you want your kid to have free access to messageboards then for her peace of mind you are going to have to avoid letting her access places where you like to troll. If you deliberately post in an inflammatory manner then you will likely rile some people up. By failing to protect your child's privacy you open her up to abuse which would otherwise be directed at you. If you are going to let her personal details online then ensure they do not link to any identity you adopt which could be described as less than stellar. Parenting involves sacrifices. Those sacrifices are to *your* freedoms. Not ours.

Good rule of thumb that sadly, too many ADULTS don't even follow. (Look at all the bitching about Facebook privacy issues)

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by Zeener Diode

You wanna scalp her?

Too much work, and there's no real demand for white girl scalps.

[Don't fight the hypothetical]

Originally Posted by severe delays

Someone went researching, huh? Researching what, exactly. The child has no internet access. She cannot have put her details online without a caregiver authorising that. And even if everything down to her shoe size was online that would not link her to the nickname adopted by a random person using one specific messageboard on the internet. So if someone has made specific threats against your child then it is because you or another caregiver breached her privacy.

Now I'm not saying this to have a go at you, despite your rudeness. My point is that you can't have everything. If you want your kid to have free access to messageboards then for her peace of mind you are going to have to avoid letting her access places where you like to troll. If you deliberately post in an inflammatory manner then you will likely rile some people up. By failing to protect your child's privacy you open her up to abuse which would otherwise be directed at you. If you are going to let her personal details online then ensure they do not link to any identity you adopt which could be described as less than stellar. Parenting involves sacrifices. Those sacrifices are to *your* freedoms. Not ours.

That there is a damn fine post.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Ken didn't "breach" the kids' privacy simply by saying they exist or mentioning their names. And even if he reported on every bowel movement, that entitles nobody to threaten or harass the kids.

[Mr. Plumbean]

I agree about not letting his daughter read this board or the dope. I don't see the point of that.

[Who_me?]

I just saw this thread. While I don't think we need a special rule about threatening to rape children (I think we can figure out when someone goes over the line) I think that when a sock goes over a line, that the puppeteer should see some consequence.

While Snuffles IS probably MC keeping his hand in at being an asshole, I think that when a post goes into assholeland as far as that did, that the mod's/admin's policy of free sockage can be abridged. Not to force the staff to search and box/ban the puppeteer, but a general knowledge that they [b]can[/] go after the hand behind the sock and can box/ban the person's other identities on the board by using their IP address.

[transcriber]

Originally Posted by Cricetus

I agree about not letting his daughter read this board or the dope. I don't see the point of that.

Yeah, considering how upset his daughter was to find out he was an atheist, I wonder how she'll feel about his various comments about religious people.

[Ken S.]

I have never disparaged religious people, so she'd be fine.

[LurkMeister]

Originally Posted by Fenris

Actually Dio's posted some good, solid posts here*. You, on the other (man)hand, have never contributed a single post worth thinking about to either board.


*and this is me saying this.

When Dio/Ken S started posting here I was pleasantly surprised that almost none of the drama like there was at SDMB ensued, and his posting style was markedly different here than it was there. Then he was banned at SDMB and it seemed like people decided that they had to follow him here to start the same crap, and he felt obliged to revert to his SDMB posting style.

Ignoring people that annoy you works both ways. As wring said earlier, letting people know that something they said bothers you just lets them and others know that this is a way they can "get" you. Refusing to rise to the bait keeps you from sinking to their level.

[severe delays]

Originally Posted by Cricetus

Ken didn't "breach" the kids' privacy simply by saying they exist or mentioning their names. And even if he reported on every bowel movement, that entitles nobody to threaten or harass the kids.

No it doesn't entitle them. But that's using the same logic that says we should be able to leave our front doors wide open without being robbed or walk naked down the street without being raped. It's nice but it doesn't deal with reality which is that some people will do bad things to other people.

It is a breach of their privacy. It wasn't done maliciously but their privacy was still breached by putting out that information. We all think very carefully about what information we make public and make decisions which are partly based on maintaining our privacy and safety. Parents are the ones who are responsible for doing that job for their children. Put out enough information and behave like a sufficiently obnoxious asshole and it's not difficult to see that someone is going to be annoyed and use the information provided to retaliate. And that's what's happened here. So yes, the children's privacy was breached and this is the consequence.

[Panacea]

Originally Posted by LurkMeister

Ignoring people that annoy you works both ways. As wring said earlier, letting people know that something they said bothers you just lets them and others know that this is a way they can "get" you. Refusing to rise to the bait keeps you from sinking to their level.

Absolutely. Ignore 'em and don't respond to 'em. The rest of us are not likely to play their games either, if we don't get these huge "yes you did" "no I didn't" threads.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Originally Posted by severe delays

No it doesn't entitle them. But that's using the same logic that says we should be able to leave our front doors wide open without being robbed or walk naked down the street without being raped. It's nice but it doesn't deal with reality which is that some people will do bad things to other people.

It is a breach of their privacy. It wasn't done maliciously but their privacy was still breached by putting out that information. We all think very carefully about what information we make public and make decisions which are partly based on maintaining our privacy and safety. Parents are the ones who are responsible for doing that job for their children. Put out enough information and behave like a sufficiently obnoxious asshole and it's not difficult to see that someone is going to be annoyed and use the information provided to retaliate. And that's what's happened here. So yes, the children's privacy was breached and this is the consequence.

You keep saying "breached the children's privacy," because your argument would be so obviously weak if you said, "told people he had children," which is all he did.

[LurkMeister]

Originally Posted by Ken S.

Some cunt like you went researching.

I'm probably going to regret asking this, but what kind of "personal details" about the child are we referring to? I don't slavishly follow everything that is posted here or in SDMB, but the only info I've seen about his kids are their ages, which he posted himself.

And by the way, add me to the people who think that expecting people on a message board to moderate their posts because there's a chance that a child of one of the posters may be reading them is ridiculous.

[Who_me?]

Originally Posted by LurkMeister

I'm probably going to regret asking this, but what kind of "personal details" about the child are we referring to? I don't slavishly follow everything that is posted here or in SDMB, but the only info I've seen about his kids are their ages, which he posted himself.

And by the way, add me to the people who think that expecting people on a message board to moderate their posts because there's a chance that a child of one of the posters may be reading them is ridiculous.

I think some asshole decided it would be a good idea to mark his home's location on Google maps...

[Borborygmi]

Cricetus, no one here actually condones the offensive post by 'Snuffles' that you linked to. Think of it this way: the Giraffe Boards is like a biker bar. And it was like Snuffles came in, opened a bag of flour, flinged it all over us and shouted "I just fucked your mama, and she paid ME". We were about to beat him up with pool-cues, but somehow we got to talking about recipes for scones and kind of forgot about it.

[Ken S.]

Originally Posted by severe delays

No it doesn't entitle them. But that's using the same logic that says we should be able to leave our front doors wide open without being robbed or walk naked down the street without being raped. It's nice but it doesn't deal with reality which is that some people will do bad things to other people.

It is a breach of their privacy. It wasn't done maliciously but their privacy was still breached by putting out that information. We all think very carefully about what information we make public and make decisions which are partly based on maintaining our privacy and safety. Parents are the ones who are responsible for doing that job for their children. Put out enough information and behave like a sufficiently obnoxious asshole and it's not difficult to see that someone is going to be annoyed and use the information provided to retaliate. And that's what's happened here. So yes, the children's privacy was breached and this is the consequence.

I didn't post my address, you victim-blaming sociopath.

[severe delays]

Originally Posted by Cricetus

You keep saying "breached the children's privacy," because your argument would be so obviously weak if you said, "told people he had children," which is all he did.

Cricetus, I haven't read the thread. As I said, I don't follow that nonsense. But you've already revealed their ages here so that's a breach of their privacy. Kendio has said that the comment was made about her "personally, by name". From that I'm reading that they were named by more than just a reference to their relationship to Kendio. As in "I'm gonna get Tabitha" rather than "I'm gonna get your kid, Kendio". So if they have been named that's a breach of their privacy.

To be more clear - it's not a problem to put your kid's details out in public or online. The problem comes from doing that AND from having an online persona which is aggressive towards others. This invites retaliatory comments and there's a danger that some lunatic will take things offline. That's where the breach of privacy is. In linking the child with the adult in a manner where the child can become a target. Consider Salambo. She puts photos of her daughter up for us to squee over. She tells us about her daughter's life. But the child is never referred to by her real name. And the person using the username 'Salambo' is always pleasant. For all we know she also has accounts all over the net where she trolls religious fanatics and white power advocates. But the important part is, if she does that she keeps it separate from her kid. There's no link between anything that could bring harm and her children.

Now I don't know much about Kendio. He posts here and there in the fora I read and sometimes he's pleasant, sometimes snarky, sometimes informative and sometimes neutral - just like everyone else. He's been rude to me in this thread but I'm going to put that down to being understandably upset about his children and not assume it is how he'd normally behave towards me. That said, he has a reptuation. I opt out of all the snark threads and even I've heard his reputation. The names he uses are linked to his snarky persona and that can't be undone. But he needs to consider his responsibility as a parent and break the connection between that persona and his kids. And if that means trawling every post he's ever made to ensure their names, schools, locations, whatever are removed then that's what he's got to do.

[Ken S.]

Originally Posted by LurkMeister

I'm probably going to regret asking this, but what kind of "personal details" about the child are we referring to? I don't slavishly follow everything that is posted here or in SDMB, but the only info I've seen about his kids are their ages, which he posted himself.

And by the way, add me to the people who think that expecting people on a message board to moderate their posts because there's a chance that a child of one of the posters may be reading them is ridiculous.

I didn't ask anybody to moderate their posts, and do I really have to point out again that's there's a difference between generally adult content and sexually explicit attacks directed personally, by name and address, at specific children?

[Ken S.]

Originally Posted by LurkMeister

I'm probably going to regret asking this, but what kind of "personal details" about the child are we referring to?

A few years ago, I posted their names in a thread where I was seeking advice about baby names for my youngest. That's all. The rest is all stalking.

[severe delays]

Originally Posted by Who_me?

I think some asshole decided it would be a good idea to mark his home's location on Google maps...

But how did that information get out in the first place? There's a few of you know my address from the postcard exchange but that's it aside from IRL friends who post here. When I give that out I assume that people are going to share it around at some point. But you know what? I don't care. I don't have children to protect. If I had kids then you'd all be getting a PO Box! For the record, my address on the GB map is London Underground's head office, not where I actually live.

[Ken S.]

Originally Posted by severe delays

Cricetus, I haven't read the thread. As I said, I don't follow that nonsense. But you've already revealed their ages here so that's a breach of their privacy. Kendio has said that the comment was made about her "personally, by name". From that I'm reading that they were named by more than just a reference to their relationship to Kendio. As in "I'm gonna get Tabitha" rather than "I'm gonna get your kid, Kendio". So if they have been named that's a breach of their privacy.

To be more clear - it's not a problem to put your kid's details out in public or online. The problem comes from doing that AND from having an online persona which is aggressive towards others. This invites retaliatory comments and there's a danger that some lunatic will take things offline. That's where the breach of privacy is. In linking the child with the adult in a manner where the child can become a target. Consider Salambo. She puts photos of her daughter up for us to squee over. She tells us about her daughter's life. But the child is never referred to by her real name. And the person using the username 'Salambo' is always pleasant. For all we know she also has accounts all over the net where she trolls religious fanatics and white power advocates. But the important part is, if she does that she keeps it separate from her kid. There's no link between anything that could bring harm and her children.

Now I don't know much about Kendio. He posts here and there in the fora I read and sometimes he's pleasant, sometimes snarky, sometimes informative and sometimes neutral - just like everyone else. He's been rude to me in this thread but I'm going to put that down to being understandably upset about his children and not assume it is how he'd normally behave towards me. That said, he has a reptuation. I opt out of all the snark threads and even I've heard his reputation. The names he uses are linked to his snarky persona and that can't be undone. But he needs to consider his responsibility as a parent and break the connection between that persona and his kids. And if that means trawling every post he's ever made to ensure their names, schools, locations, whatever are removed then that's what he's got to do.

I don't post their details, cunt.

[severe delays]

SOMEONE responsible for those children did. If it wasn't you then who was it?

[Ken S.]

Originally Posted by severe delays

But how did that information get out in the first place?

It was stalked based on information I've posted about MYSELF.

I didn't post my address, and even if I had, it's not an excuse to terrorize my children, you fucking sociopath.

[Ken S.]

Originally Posted by severe delays

SOMEONE responsible for those children did. If it wasn't you then who was it?

No, cunt. No one responsible for those children posted their details. it was stalked.

[severe delays]

Can we just clarify that calling me a cunt doesn't do much? I'm British, we use that as a term of endearment.

I see you are namecalling to try to make me back down. But I'm not going to. You have a responsibility to safeguard your children and that includes not involving them in adult nasty behaviour. It's not us that is at fault here.

I'm off to work. Try to think up an actually offensive name before I get back.

ETA: By "us" I mean the posting body as a whole. Snuffles obviously is at fault too.

[Uthrecht]

If we're going to have children read the board, can I ask that we institute a rule against using words like cunt?

[Ken S.]

Originally Posted by severe delays

Can we just clarify that calling me a cunt doesn't do much? I'm British, we use that as a term of endearment.

I see you are namecalling to try to make me back down. But I'm not going to. You have a responsibility to safeguard your children and that includes not involving them in adult nasty behaviour. It's not us that is at fault here.

I'm off to work. Try to think up an actually offensive name before I get back.

Safeguarding my children is exactly what I'm doing here, cunt. How does that smug, self-justifying, sociopathology serve you in real life?

[Ken S.]

Originally Posted by Uthrecht

If we're going to have children read the board, can I ask that we institute a rule against using words like cunt?

This is a phony issue, since nobody has asked anybody to moderate their language for children.

[severe delays]

Just dandy, thanks for asking.

How are you safeguarding them by creating so much drama around them? I never knew of the existence of them before but now I know their ages, gender, location and that their father is attempting to be rude to me. If I wanted to, I could track them down. Congratulations, you've just exposed your children to greater danger.

The best thing you can do at this point is to edit their details out and if you can't do that then ask moderators to delete the relevant posts.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Originally Posted by severe delays

But how did that information get out in the first place? There's a few of you know my address from the postcard exchange but that's it aside from IRL friends who post here. When I give that out I assume that people are going to share it around at some point. But you know what? I don't care. I don't have children to protect. If I had kids then you'd all be getting a PO Box! For the record, my address on the GB map is London Underground's head office, not where I actually live.

I reject your whole argument that casual information about your family entitles people to threaten and harass your family, but I'm also amused at how little information passes for a "breach of privacy." Names and ages... hell, didn't they used to post birth announcements in the newspaper? It's the kind of data people share with people they've just met. "Personal information" and "privacy" are vast, vague terms, but most of the parents I know have posted a photo or two (or two thousand) of their kids on Facebook and/or blog about them. My son's name is in a dedication to my third book, along with our home town. I hardly think I've breached his privacy and betrayed his trust. I definitely haven't given anyone license to threaten or harass him, and if they do, it will not be completely my fault for not keeping his entire existence a deep, dark secret.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Originally Posted by severe delays

If I wanted to, I could track them down. Congratulations, you've just exposed your children to greater danger.

This is crazy talk.

[Ken S.]

Originally Posted by severe delays

Just dandy, thanks for asking.

How are you safeguarding them by creating so much drama around them?

I didn't create anything around them at all, sociopath.

[LurkMeister]

Originally Posted by Ken S.

I didn't ask anybody to moderate their posts, and do I really have to point out again that's there's a difference between generally adult content and sexually explicit attacks directed personally, by name and address, at specific children?

I guess I must have also missed the posts where someone made "sexually explicit attacks directed personally, by name and address, at specific children".

[Ken S.]

Yes you missed it.

[WednesdayAddams]

Originally Posted by Cricetus

This is crazy talk.

SD may be being a bit hyperbolic, but what she's saying isn't crazy. It's entirely realistic to point out that these posts are not open merely to a few people who subscribe to this board, but anyone on the internet who happens to pass through. It's reasonable to take certain precautions, such as minimizing the exposure of not only yourself, but your family as well.

If you (general you, not specific) are going to place large amounts of private information on the internet for all to see, it's not reasonable to simply expect that there is no one who would take undue advantage of that information, nor is it reasonable to react outraged when it happens. While I wouldn't go so far as to say 'you brought it on yourself,' I would probably say you didn't protect yourself as well as you could, and that people are bastard covered bastards with bastard filling, and to pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.

[Ken S.]

Wrong. It is entirely reasonable to expect that people will not stalk and threaten my children just because I have mentioned their names and ages.

Please remember, this is not a hypothetical to me, this is something that is happening to me right now. I've gotten phone calls. Someone came into my backyard two nights ago and set off our security light. It's probably unrelated, but who knows. It took somebody really disturbed to research enough to know the name of the person I bought my house from.

[Who_me?]

Can we all sit back and breathe for a bit here?

The story, as I see it, is that during a Durp thread a comment was made that Dio saw as a threat to rape his daughter. I read it as a hypothetical daughter and shrugged it off. Dio didn't and it became a bit of a mess.

Someone stalked Dio and marked out his home on a map.

Snuffles commented about someone raping Dio/Ken S.'s daughter and making him watch. There was no other reason for the post than to bring up the original incident and to cause drama and for Ken S. to go through the roof.

I don't have any children, but I can see emotions taking control when even hypothetical threats are made towards children. However, we're just playing Snuffles' game here and this is exactly the reaction he wanted.

[severe delays]

Cricetus, I'd appreciate it if you could quote the exact part of my post where I said that people with information had an *entitlement* to harass.

Seems to me that a sociopath is exactly what you both need to consider this issue. Someone who doesn't care about your obnoxious comments and who doesn't care about your children. Neutral, emotionally-detached advice is a good thing.