Privacy Issues

[Guest]

Can you spare a hundred bucks?

[zanemay]

This change-the-rules / don't-change-the-rules discussion reminds me of the debate going on in the USA about changing the Constitution.

 

Uh... what is the board policy...Can board members of the same sex marry? (I got me eye on a couple of guys :hubba:)

 

Oops...it's late and I've lost the..uh.. thread...

 

ZM

[Yehtmae]

HIGH THAIED said:

Can you spare a hundred bucks?

 

Any particular species of buck in mind?

[whosyourdaddy]

I really think this is a no brainer. I have been to Woodstock a few times and know a few of the old time members, including where some of them live, jobs, ex jobs, ex GF. Leaving some of this information off of the internet is just common sence. But so is telling people you barely know some information, especially if you dont want some A$$hole trying to ruin your life, job and family. It can be easily done. Just takes pissing someone off enough by going against/ saying something what they believe in.

 

With a few print outs off of the net, it get a few people in hot water, especially if they are married or have a high end job in Thailand.

 

The easy thing to do is just make up some information as a persona if you want to keep your personal information completely safe.

 

See this could make it kind of messy if people start going tit for tat. Especially since I am pretty sure who BT (M) is.

 

ALthough I dont disagree with some of the things that have been said about Blackie, I still dont think it helped the thread or was relevant to defend bargirl thieves at the expense of insulting board members.

 

This could get messy, posters could leave, the board could go to shit similar to what happened to the old TAG board, which was closed down when someone contact the guys embassy when he pissed a few people off.

[Stickman]

Yep, there are a few idiots out there who try to collate and collect information about people and make things awkward for them. Happened to me very recently. Someone got quite nasty and knew things about me which only one person knew. I was able to work out who it was.

 

I was talking to Bangkok Phil about this just last weekend and we both agreed that one of the unfortunate things about the internet is that envy is a big deal for a few lsoers who like to shit stir big time.

 

Stick

[JJsushi]

Man you guys make it difficult to to maintain my self-imposed lurk status!! Now I am a promise breaker!

 

I am only posting because I view this topic as a very important issue regarding the structure and moderation of the board. I feel the cause is more noble than my personal issues. I promise I will re-instate my gag when this topic is done.

 

 

Soongmak I agree totally that privacy should be kept out of respect for other members.

I don't feel that the Blackie thread is a good case to base your debate on. In his thread I don't think any privacy that would identify him in any way beyond what he already revealed was breached. Was his credibility assailed based on a personal incident? Yes it was, however his credibility was vouched for too.

 

Blackie repeatedly through his opaque thread dismissed others in an rude and abrupt manner members who "questioned" or "challenged" the way in which he viewed and handled his incident. His atitude was basically " if you don;t know me then you can't really comment on how I handle my business".

 

When members opined that the reason that Blackie was robbed 5x out of 9 months could be based upon Blackies actions, behavior, attitude or interactions with the BG's rather than him just being a poor disabled fellow being taken advantage of; he would state that the member really did not know him or his personal situations so therefore they were not "QUALIFIED" to to make that assessment.

 

He then went into the whole BG's are evil, whoring thieves with no morals or sense of ethics and he had an altruistic obligation to warn the brethern of their unscrupulous ways. He of course had no culpability in the thefts aside from his being disabled and too trusting.

 

Blackie basically through his posts planted himself on some sort of higher moral and ethical ground. He placed himself in a position where his credibility and character should not be questioned(by doing this you automatically will have those things challenged). The credibility and character were then supported by other board members who stated that they personally knew and interacted with him at some point.

 

Now you have a couple of other board members that did not agree with Blackies supposed pristine credibility or character and they commented that he was a hypocrite. They cited a specific example that questioned his credibility on the grounds that he did not honor his debts. Now if they had simply said he was a hypocrite or a welch the mods and most readers would have called it a flame and I am sure some would even ask, " well how can you substantiate such a claim-where is the proof?". I am even positive that Mr. Blackie himself reading such a statement that he is a hypocrite or a welch would have responded that the person did not know him and was not "QUALIFIED" to make such an assessment. I am sure if those who initially supported him would have labeled the naysayers as flaming with no basis to call Blackie a welch or a hypocrite. Well as you know flaming is not tolerated on this board, so how else can you post a negative without it being labeled a flame? You basically have to substantiate it.

 

Funny thing is that by citing a personal experience that questions Blackies character-no one has disagreed or challenged it-which would include Blackie and his supporters. Instead people are outraged that a personal incident was utlized to substantiate the accusations.

 

The problem is that if a member vouches for a guy based on personal and private relations, he does not have to substantiate it in any form; his word is accepted. On the other hand if a person assails a guy based on personal and private interactions he would then be labeled as flaming a guy especially if he does not substantiate it. So are we saying that we should only post the positive support and omit the negative support?

 

I would find it to be very hypocritical to allow one guy to post that you can trust a another because he knows the person personally yet you would disallow another to say you can't trust the guy because they know him personally. One would say that you should attack the post and not the poster. I agree with that. Unfortunately in Blackies thread people were supporting the poster and not neccessarily the post, hence the issue of credibility came into play, hence the assailment of Blackie's credibility.

 

You want to delete FatB and BarT's posts then you must in all fairness delete WYD's and Stick's too. Maybe the solution is not to allow any type of vouching for a posters credibility and character? After all when you vouch for an individual it is usually based on "PRIVATE and "PERSONAL" experiences or information.

 

 

people please let me continue with my self imposed gag!

[Zaad]

In the case at hand, Blackie was making strong statements about himself, others refuted this, where is really the problem.

He brought it a bit to himself here, would you not say ?

Still not saying it is ok to do so, but I understand the reasons perfectly.

Good point BB.

 

I do agree with Soongmak that posters' indentity and personal information should be kept secret at all times and not be thrown onto the board by any other than the poster himself, but I'm afraid this rule may (will) be taken advantage of.

 

Posters in this case could very well deliberately keep valuable (personal) info out in order to strengthen (or not weaken) their position in a discussion knowing that other posters aren't allowed to bring this valuable added info.

Such posters are equally at fault and should IMO suffer the same consequences.

[spirit_of_town_hall]

Very interested, the situation you alude to is mirrored by common law. If one brings their character in to question in a court of law then the prosecution or defence can bring in evidence as to the persons character.

 

By Blackie bringing in to the argument his character , evidence as to his character can be admitted. However evidence can only be admitted if he first raises it.

 

STH

[SiLeakHunt]

Not wanting to blow anyones cover or get them in trouble or nowt, but I've met Whosyourdaddy personally.

He's half catholic, half Muslim donkey rustlers apprentice from the old soviet state of Usbekhisnot.

When we met he insisted that I keep secret the fact that he now instructs motorcycle mechanics in the art two stroke vehicle mileage adulteration at the Klong Toey Gay and Lesbian Institute for the performing Arts and Mechatronics.

He regularly drinks in Nest of vipers Soi 33 and if you've ever caught pubic lice in Thailand, he as likely as not the original source.

He lives in a tin shack at the back of Soi Zero.

He's tall for a shortarse has black brown gingery blonde hair and is a determined non smoker who enjoys the odd cigarette.

 

If you've got a chip on your shoulder about him there's enough info there to track him down.

 

Cheers

 

PS am I banned?

[carew66]

I've just remembered where I met the bloke with the pins in his leg. This is embarrassing. It wasn't in Cathouse, Koh Samui or even Thailand. It was a fortnight ago in Amsterdam. I just thought I was in Thailand. Hells Angel - nice chap. Sorry Blackie (unless you were in that little coffee-shop near Oosterpark on St Valantines Day. If so, nice tattoos...) ::