Now Barry is Selective

[Guest FirstPlace]

This is about a post that no one on this board will see. Yet if you go to that other popular board you can read the entire post. The reason you will not see the post here is I do not donate money or run adverts on this site.

 

A moderator, Barry, gave me a stern lecture on how a post did not break the rules of these forums. He went on and on about how the post that listed a person's city, first name and weight was not releasing personal information. Though there is absolutely no logic behind the original post itself I wanted to try a post like it that Barry claimed was OK here on the board.

 

So I listed a screen name, then I added the first name of that poster. This is exactly what the original post did. Yet for some odd reason my post did not show up. And since Barry doesn't feel that incomplete bits of information could lead to someone's identity I went one step further. I took another person who post's on this board and listed the first 6 digits of his Social Security number. Now how can anyone identify someone from the first 6 of a Social Security number, right Barry?

 

I can only figure that one, maybe a little freaks out that I was able to obtain someone's SS# and this person spends a fair amount of money on this site, and the first name I posted was that of a friend of HooBoys.

 

So much for rules.

[Traveller]

You've got to get over being tied to the piano when you were younger.

 

Later.

[+ deej]

I have no idea what you're ranting about, but I can tell you that no moderator has deleted any of your postings to date. So that part is an outright lie.

 

I can also tell you that this post of yours was much-discussed among the moderators. In fact, there was another post in the queue which I mistakenly thought was a reply to this post. I hope that poster visits this thread. His response to you elsewhere would fit here equally as well.

 

You don't seem to "get" the very simple rules: no libel, no slander, and no personal information. SSN (or a fragment thereof) and real names are most certainly personal information. I fail to see what part of this rule you don't understand. I happen to know how easy it is to get someone's SSN. I used to work for one of the companies that provides those huge databases. ALL of those companies value personal privacy above all else. Why don't you?

 

You're sounding suspiciously like another poster we had here once. He's the reason we have moderators now.

 

If you don't like the way this site operates, feel free to go to any other free site to vent your spleen. God help them if they also ask for donations to offset the cost of operation, which you've already documented is quite high.

 

Why don't you just turn off the computer now? Mommy is sure to catch you sooner or later.

[Guest FirstPlace]

what is the matter deej, did the second post that you ahve not put up simply make you look that stupid, I think so, yet where is the integrity in your words? You are useless.

[+ deej]

>what is the matter deej, did

>the second post that you

>ahve not put up simply

>make you look that stupid,

>I think so, yet where

>is the integrity in your

>words? You are useless.

 

Unlike you, I actually have a life and other things to do with my time. I'm not here full-time.

 

I still say you sound like a teenager spoiling for a fight, and Mommy's gonna catch you any time.

[BewareofNick]

He needs to be more worried if Daddy catches up to him!

 

I happened to see the posts that have since been deleted. They were full of inappropriate personal information. But, considering whose first names he revealed and just what is argument is, I believe we all know who this is. And another poster lamented that the board was getting slow...

[Guest FirstPlace]

>>what is the matter deej, did

>>the second post that you

>>have not put up simply

>>make you look that stupid,

>>I think so, yet where

>>is the integrity in your

>>words? You are useless.

>

>Unlike you, I actually have a

>life and other things to

>do with my time. I'm

>not here full-time.

>

>I still say you sound like

>a teenager spoiling for a

>fight, and Mommy's gonna catch

>you any time.

 

And I ask you again DEEJ to answer the question, your little quips are not very amusing. Do you have the ability to answer a question DEEJ instead of throwing punches? Did HooBoy select you cause you are the thug moderator? Do you have the ability to think for yourself? YES, alright then, answer the question.

[+ deej]

Exactly

[+ deej]

>And I ask you again DEEJ

>to answer the question, your

>little quips are not very

>amusing. Do you have the

>ability to answer a question

>DEEJ instead of throwing punches?

>Did HooBoy select you cause

>you are the thug moderator?

>Do you have the ability

>to think for yourself? YES,

>alright then, answer the question.

 

Yes, I do have the ability to think for myself. And I am often labasted for it and accused of shilling for HooBoy simply for offering my own opinion. I'm fucked either way I go.

 

Your original response was much debated, finally released from the queue, and I responded to it. Both of our messages were deleted. (I presume by HooBoy. And I expected it.) You posted personal information and the note at the top of this page says very clearly that personal information will be deleted. Why are you surprised by this?

 

I'm perfectly capable of being a thug when I wish to be. I learned a lot as a US Marine (and escort) 20 years ago.

 

Why not drop the persona, Billy?

[Guest jc92103]

stupid

[+ deej]

Uesful and informative response.

 

Thank you.

[BewareofNick]

I've had the pleasure of corresponding with deej on occasion outside of this board and I have found him nothing less than pleasant and charming. It's pretty obvious to me who First Place is (Either Billy or Sean) and that this is just the SAME rehash of the same tired old drama that the two of them seem to get off on. In the deleted posts, one of the issues mentioned had to do with an attribute of clients that Sean in particular has a hard time dealing with. Funny how no one else has a problem with the way the board is moderated, but then again, FIrst Place really doesn't care about that. He just wants to start a fight. Back to the psychiatrist and the prozac before it's too late!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest WorldEscrt Sean]

Nick, First off I don't need to hide behind a screen name to voice any opinion that I may have. Unlike most of you. Secondly, I have no idea what this is about but I would greatly appreciate you not dragging my name into bullshit that I don't belong in. I suggest that most of you turn the computer off, go smoke a joint, get in your car and go for a drive and turn on some nice tunes and relax. In other words GET SOMETHING THAT RESEMBLES A LIFE! Have a good day!

[Guest TFNH]

A Question

 

Slander is oral, so it doesn't really apply here, only libel would. If a statement is truthful and backed up by facts would it still be considered libelous? If so, how can anything negative ever be expressed?

[Guest WorldEscrt Sean]

RE: A Question

 

Defamation and the Internet: Questions of Sysop Liability

 

Internet defamation law is complicated by the tricky question of sysop liability. In defamation law for print and broadcast media, liability is sometimes considered to extend beyond the defamer himself (for instance, the writer of a libelous newspaper column) to the "publisher" of the material (in the previous example, the newspaper running the column). The idea of holding publishers responsible for libelous material in traditional media has been thoroughly tested and defined in court; there are clear precedents for determining who is liable for defamatory statements in these media. On the Internet, however, such issues are considerably more nebulous. Defining the Sysop

 

 

A sysop, or system operator, is defined as a person or organization who in some way manages the publication/distribution of material on-line. The most common example is the operator of a bulletin board where users are permitted to post messages which can then be read by other users. Such bulletin boards may be exclusive to a limited group of subscribers, or they may be accessible to anyone on the Internet. The exact role of the sysop can range from merely providing technical support for the posting and reading of messages to carefully reading and editing all published submissions. It is this disparity in the functions of individual sysops that leads to questions about the extent of a sysop's liability in individual cases. One view of a sysop is as a common carrier, much the way telephone companies are legally viewed. Just as telephone companies attempt no control over what information is communicated across their wires, and are not held legally liable for the content of such communication, this view of a sysop indicates that the sysop provides a forum for any message the user wishes to communicate and is therefore not liable for the content of such a message. For such a definition to apply, the sysop would have to take no editorial or censorial control whatsoever over any postings; only then can he be considered a common carrier. An example of this might be the host of a live-chat room who in no way limits access to this chat room or monitors the conversations which take place therein.

 

 

 

 

Liability Issues (part 2)

 

Defining the Sysop (continued)

 

 

 

The opposite role from a common carrier is what is called a publisher; in the case of print media, this is the company that actually prints the newspapers containing defamatory material. A publisher is held legally liable for the information it prints because it exercises full editorial control over that information; it is therefore assumed to be in a position to monitor its content for defamatory material. Many sysops are deemed to fit this role much more closely than that of distributor or common carrier, as past court decisions on sysop liability have shown. In Stratton vs. Prodigy (see Precedent section), a judge noted that Prodigy did exercise control over its content and could therefore be held responsible for that content. This definition of Prodigy as a publisher was later changed, but some sysops are still considered publishers under the law. A more definitive example would be a newsgroup moderator who reads and edits all material before any is posted; this moderator then clearly takes an active role in the dissemination of defamatory information. A third category, between common carrier and publisher, is the category of distributor. Again, an analogy to print media is useful; the distributor in this case would be the newsstand which may sell a newspaper containing defamatory content. The newsstand is not assumed to be aware of the content of all the publications it sells and is therefore not held responsible for that content. However, in some situations, the newsstand may in fact be aware of defamatory content; in this instance, it can then be held liable for continuing to distribute this content. In general, a distributor is seen as taking only a passive role in possible defamation and is therefore not liable; only when some deliberate transgression (such as failing to remove material it knows to be defamatory) can be proven is the distributor liable. This category, sitting in the middle ground between two extremes, is the most difficult to define and deal with, but it seems to be the appropriate designation for many sysops, who will in general not attempt to monitor content but may take action to remove exceptionable content if it is brought to their attention. In Cubby vs. CompuServe (see Precedent section), CompuServe was deemed a distributor and therefore not held liable for defamatory material of which it could not be expected to have knowledge. However, the categorization also implies that if CompuServe had been made aware of this material, it would have been obligated to remove it.

 

 

 

 

Liability Issues (part 3)

 

Problems of Applying Traditional Definitions

 

Although these definitions can be and have been applied to sysops in Internet defamation cases, some problems do arise with such categorization. For instance, when Prodigy was deemed in court to be a publisher, many were concerned that penalizing a service for attempting to maintain control of its bulletin boards could discourage any attempts at control whatsoever. Not only could this conceivably make it easier for defamers to spread on-line, it also makes it more difficult for a service to forbid flaming or, like Prodigy, provide a "family-friendly" forum for communication, or even to focus that forum on discussion of a specific topic, as many bulletin boards do. Further, laws that hold sysops liable for their content can, by making the sysop's position a hazardous one, discourage people and organizations from taking on this role, therefore reducing the usefulness of the Internet as a forum for communication among all users. There are some who will argue that this ultimately results in an unnecessary restriction on free communication, and that sysops should therefore not be held liable for defamation or other violations on their services under any circumstances. Others, of course, argue that defamation is a serious enough problem, especially on a forum like the Internet where false information is so easily spread, that all possible efforts should be made to discourage it, and this extends to making sysops responsible for the material they make available. The issue is new enough that neither courts nor legislation have yet rendered definitive verdicts on these questions; only time will tell how they are ultimately answered.

[+ deej]

Sean, it is unfortunate that BoN mentioned your name but you must admit you've been involved in your share of controversy around here. :9

 

For the record, everyone, Daddy has done some IP address sniffing and our pal FirstPlace is NOT Billy or Sean. I offer my apology to Billy for accusing him earlier, and I suspect that BoN will now do the gracious thing and offer his apology to Sean as well.

[Guest TFNH]

RE: A Question

 

Rrriiiggghhhttt.....thanks I guess. However, what comes to mind is, "I asked him what time it was and he told me how to make a clock".

[Guest Daddy-In-Training]

RE: A Question

 

Sean,

 

While I have no problem with you either citing or quoting from lengthly legal documents. I insist that you keep them to a reasonable length and that you attribute them.

 

I've delete the two longer ones....Please reenter them in a more approriate manner.

 

-- Daddy

[Guest WorldEscrt Sean]

RE: A Question

 

In order to understand what time it is one must uderstand how a clock works.

[Guest WorldEscrt Sean]

RE: A Question

 

Daddy dear, I felt that they were relevant to T's question. I suggest that you re post them for the mindless idiots that don't realize the legal trouble they can find themselves in for posting false statements about people.

[Guest Daddy-In-Training]

RE: A Question

 

Sean dear, Don't play with Daddy when he's being grumpy.

 

-- Daddy

[Guest Daddy-In-Training]

RE: A Question

 

Actually to understand time, you either:

 

a) have to have a understanding of multidimensional physics or b) Be a timelord.

 

-- Daddy

[Guest WorldEscrt Sean]

RE: A Question

 

Daddy dear, I was being very serious. If I were playing with you TRUST ME you'd know it. <very evil grin>

[Guest Daddy-In-Training]

RE: A Question

 

<Perks up> Why you naughty boy....Ok, The first one to get goose bumps loses.

 

Be warned that anything less than two hours of foreplay will be considered a nooner and will be disqualified.

 

I'll match my 30 years of tongue play against your sword anytime <Lear> Old Age and Skill will always win over youth and exuberance.

 

Perhaps Bilbo as the referee?

 

-- Daddy

[Guest jizzdepapi]

not for nothing...

 

but did the poster who's brushing up the sysop's grasp of the law just telll everyone to go get high and go for a ride in their car?

 

where the fuck is judge judy when you need her?