The cyber-civility thread

[snoseek]

I'm both an online asshole and a real-life asshole so suck it bitches!!!

 

[billski]

because you use the name "Bill" in your screen name doesnt make you any less anonymous then someone refering to themselves as lavalamp or whatever.

Agreed. And I never said I practice what I preach. I chose "billski" so I could "fit in" here, after looking around and seeing that "full disclosure" was not embraced.

 

[riverc0il]

because you use the name "Bill" in your screen name doesnt make you any less anonymous then someone refering to themselves as lavalamp or whatever.

For what it is worth, if you poke around, billski is anything but anonymous and has a lot of personal info out there on them interwebs. Not that I am some creepy stalker or anything.

 

[bvibert]

Agreed. And I never said I practice what I preach. I chose "billski" so I could "fit in" here, after looking around and seeing that "full disclosure" was not embraced.

I thought your last name was really Ski. What a disappointment...

 

[billski]

I thought your last name was really Ski. What a disappointment...

I'm very sorry about that Mr. Vibert
I petitioned the government of Poland, but they said "no."

Steve's right, it's pretty easy to find out who I am. In fact, I use the same name in almost every group I belong to. So, if I ever commit a crime, the FBI will have an easy time chasing me down!:flag:

 

[ckofer]

I don't really care what others do. If a forum sucks, I leave.

 

[marcski]

I thought your last name was really Ski. What a disappointment...

Bill and I are related. You guys just figuring this out now?

 

[drjeff]

Bill and I are related. You guys just figuring this out now?

So you're related to BOTH Billski and Marc??? God help you! :lol:

 

[billski]

So you're related to BOTH Billski and Marc??? God help you! :lol:

I thought there was a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on this forum. :razz: No? :-(

 

[Marc]

Everyone's going to claim relation to me when I'm rich and famous.

I'm expecting that to happen any day now...


Yup. Any day now.......

 

[witch hobble]

Hey legalskier, I'm interested. Don't shy away. I'm new here, but what these guys are doing is the equivalent of goosing each other or giving internet wedgies. It comes from chumminess, not callousness or mean-spiritedness.

I've always thought one of the fun things about these forums was having a handle. A nom de plume more so than a nom de guerre. Where is the line drawn between agitating and trolling for a flame out?

 

[billski]

what these guys are doing is the equivalent of goosing each other or giving internet wedgies. It comes from chumminess, not callousness or mean-spiritedness.

+1
A lot of teasing and taunting goes on here. It often gets lost in the translation. Using emoticons early and often is essential (I got burned on that one.) and it's easy to lose the thought. I also get burned a lot having a very sarcastic sense of humor which really struggles to come through in text...

 

[St. Bear]

+1
A lot of teasing and taunting goes on here. It often gets lost in the translation. Using emoticons early and often is essential (I got burned on that one.) and it's easy to lose the thought. I also get burned a lot having a very sarcastic sense of humor which really struggles to come through in text...

I'll second the latter thought, but I abhore the use of emoticons, so if something I write is mistaken, so be it.

 

[legalskier]

Hey legalskier, I'm interested. Don't shy away. I'm new here, but what these guys are doing is the equivalent of goosing each other or giving internet wedgies. It comes from chumminess, not callousness or mean-spiritedness.

I've always thought one of the fun things about these forums was having a handle. A nom de plume more so than a nom de guerre. Where is the line drawn between agitating and trolling for a flame out?

That’s what I was hoping to explore, at a minimum. This is a developing area which “etiquette” and the law appear to be lagging behind. Ever since the Sugarloaf incident last winter, which generated intense responses around the country, as well as the behavior of certain unnamed individuals here, I’ve been intrigued. The problem is that general questions/principles/platitudes only take you so far. What I wanted to do was to look at specific real world situations that may provide a sense of where the boundaries exist, if at all. It might sound academic, but it does have real world application. My thick skin and firm belief in freedom of speech means I have no problem with spirited debates and good-natured teasing. If people want to have fun, by all means be my guest. Then again, if there are no boundaries, anything goes, and people, and their reputations, can get taken advantage of. I do have other things to present, but right now my schedule has other ideas.

 

[Marc]

Ending a sentence in a preposition is something up with which I will not put.

 

[Beetlenut]

Ending a sentence in a preposition is something up with which I will not put.

You tell em' Yoda!

That is all!
Just wanted to post in this epic thread on civility!

 

[ctenidae]

Ending a sentence in a preposition is something up with which I will not put.

Good Old Boy from Arkansas was walking around the Harvard campus one day, when he stopped a student and asked, "Hey, where's the library at?" The student looked at him, in that totally non-condescending way that is so common to yankees, and said, "Sir, at Harvard, we do not end our sentences with a preposition." "Aw'ight," said the GOB, "where's the library at, asshole?"

 

[legalskier]

"Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is [anyone] protected from getting his feelings hur

So says a blistering editorial addressing a school board's efforts to subpoena from a news website information identifying its anonymous online critics, an effort it describes as "nothing less than official bullying designed to silence people." I posted about the situation earlier and was surprised that it engendered such little attention, as the ramifications reach out far beyond one small town. The editorial board put it very well IMHO: "It is stunning that someone in charge of educating young people — students who should be taught about the virtues of the Bill of Rights, including the freedom to speak one's mind without fear — chooses instead to emulate the worst excesses of American demagoguery, from Richard Nixon's enemies list to Sen. Joseph McCarthy's witch hunts."
http://www.app.com/article/20091020/OPINION01/910210319/1029/OPINION

Meanwhile, the anonymous posters have retained counsel, who is pushing back. The subpoenas, he argues, were procedurally defective and legally insufficient. Additionally, the news website is refusing to turn over any information. A law professor observes: "(Court decisions on online anonymity are) in flux, but in New Jersey I think there's fairly solid protection (for anonymous posters)," much to the relief of the posters.
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009910150359
However, a radio commentator who says he was contacted by a poster indicates that they are unhappy about having to pay attorney's fees.

 

[legalskier]

Courtney Love's Twitter libel case

...and other disturbing cases/issues regarding cybermanners.

"In a case that would have been impossible even five years ago, bad-girl rocker Courtney Love is being sued for libel by a fashion designer for allegedly slamming the woman on Twitter. The suit claims that after a disagreement over what Love should pay Dawn Simorangkir for the clothes she designed, Love posted allegedly derogatory and false comments about the designer -- among them that she had a "history of dealing cocaine" -- on her now-discontinued Twitter feed. But as technology evolves faster than the laws that govern free speech online, it's not just the famous who are finding trouble.***"

Here's the link: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/17/law.technology/index.html
Interesting reading.

 

[legalskier]

Student’s Facebook Tirade Against Teacher Is Protected Speech
By David Kravets
The score is 2-1 in favor of the First Amendment when it comes to three federal rulings this month on the limits of students’ online, off-campus speech. The latest ruling, which supports the student, concerned a former Florida high senior who was reprimanded for “cyberbullying” a teacher on Facebook. Katherine Evans, now 20, was suspended two years ago after creating a Facebook group devoted to her English teacher. The group was called “Ms. Sarah Phelps is the worst teacher I’ve ever met!,” and featured a photograph of the teacher and an invitation for other students to “express your feelings of hatred.”
“It was an opinion of a student about a teacher, that was published off-campus, did not cause any disruption on-campus, and was not lewd, vulgar, threatening, or advocating illegal or dangerous behavior,” Magistrate Barry Garber of Florida ruled Friday. The decision came two weeks after the nation’s first two appellate opinions differed on the matter of whether students have a First Amendment right in the online world beyond the schoolyard gates. Those conflicting decisions are the closest within the Supreme Court’s reach for review. Dozens of similar cases dot the legal landscape.***
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/20...d:+wired/index+(Wired:+Index+3+(Top+Stories+2))