Privacy Issues

[buddha]

I used to look at a site composed by "the Joker". I still find links on google to it but it is dead. Was his site shut down due to privacy concerns?

 

I'm standing firm that there is no such thing as privacy. Be prepared to be called to the carpet on anything you have published on the internet. A clear example is Hotmail and/or Yahoo mail services. Read the user agreement. You don't own the digital transmission, once you hit the send button for all intents and purposes that email is the property of yahoo and/or microsoft.

 

For some of us this is not a concern, for others it could be a lifewrecker.

 

Mutual respect between boardmembers, and the moderators is all we have to depend on.

[Guest]

Not too many details here too, but I used to see a guy contributing to this board, taking his free time for reviews and contributions (many of them shite, some of them prolly not) and at the end he got a kick in his ass with some (shite) people calling him "social reject" because of his love into bars, girls and nightlife. And I can definitely not recommend any personal contacts with some (shite) people.

 

May be, he is a "social reject" but he is proud of it! He loves the girls, he loves the bars and he loves the nightlife!

 

Hopefully, he is off the board now and he leaves it to the anti-sex coalition (Stickman, TTM, FlyOnzeWall etc.).

 

Good luck and best regards,

 

Peter1964

[ThaiHome]

"I didn't read this the first time over, but I think that is very sad. I think it also demonstrates why we should have rules regarding board members' privacy. "

 

I have way too much to lose to trust someone I met on the Internet. I prefer to remain anonymous. If you think having "board rules" would protect my privacy you sure don't know much about human nature. You decide to meet someone in person, nothing can protect you.

TH

[ThaiHome]

JJ,

As usual, a well thought out, well presented argument, which I agree with.

Reminds me a lot of the thread on comments about trip reports. People were more then willing to have their egos massaged by positive comments, but any negative feedback was considered a flame.

TH

 

P.S. You do realize there is a middle ground between obsessive posting and just lurking. Moderation is the key.

TH

[Guest]

Good post JJ.

 

By the way, since your self-imposed exile is just that...self-imposed....you can un-impose at any time.

 

>>>>>>>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 utilized to substantiate the accusations.<<<<<<

 

Whether accusations were true or not, the question arose as to whether it should be accepted here for anyone, in general, and not just his case. I think not revealing personal info here is a no-brainer. But as you point out, is it hypocritical to be able to post endorsements, but not negatives about an individual?

 

My thinking is that, yes....it is. But, this board is not the same as it is in real life. We're not a bunch of guys in a bar who freely expose themselves to who we really are, and must play by the social rules inherent with that setting. If in a bar, I tell you that "Noi" in "X" bar is HIV positive, because we just went together to be tested, I can show you the document that proves it. I cannot do that here. Real life, and the internet, is not the same environment. Here, I cannot grab you by the collar, and show you that my apartment was just burglarized. You can only take my word for it here.

 

So....yes, the rules are different, and it cannot be a perfect democracy here. The environment is much different, hence the need for different rules, as opposed to commonly accepted real-life social interaction.

 

The need for many here to remain anonymous, is obvious. Etiquette therefore, must be in place to acknowledge that. Which would include any information given, that would reveal anyone's identity. Good, or bad.

 

Given that, there remains the question of endorsement. I think it ok to endorse someone here. It's a sanuk board, and as long as it meets the board rules, and causes no harm, and can be taken with the grain of salt, that it should be.

 

Negative attacks, or revealing negative personal information about anybody, should not be allowed. It hasn?t been in the past, and should continue to be so. Hypocritical? Maybe. But as I've tried to state, the internet and real-life, are too very different animals. We're here to have fun, and exchange idea's and experiences, on the lighter side. Wanna have a deep Thai political discussion? Fine, but that is not what we are about, and the rules here need to dictate it's direction.

 

In the end, every board will have their own character, defined by what is accepted, and what is not. Our agenda here is pretty clear......keep it jai dee, and all in fun. Can we be all things to all people?.....of course not, and we don't try to be. While there will always be many grey area's, the over-riding theme will always be to strive to be a fun place to visit. Overt negativity is non-condusive to that factor, and goes against the grain, of who we are. Calling another poster a low-life deadbeat, much less giving real life details, goes against the very fabric of our existance here.

 

The day that is allowed, will be the day I'm outta here.

 

HT

 

BTW JJ.....nice to see you back.

[soongmak]

I have way too much to lose to trust someone I met on the Internet. I prefer to remain anonymous.

 

Hey man, it doesn't hurt to trust someone once in a while. Trust without being naive pays off in the long run.

 

If you think having "board rules" would protect my privacy you sure don't know much about human nature.

 

It also pays off to be nice sometime. How about you start by making a point without being patronizing?

 

Cheers,

 

soongmak

[Guest]

Hi TH,

 

>>>>You decide to meet someone in person, nothing can protect you.<<<<

 

You're wrong, as far as this board is concerned. Someone you meet wants to trash you here? You will be protected here from that. That is what this whole thread is about.

 

HT

[Bhat_Man]

Pom Michael said:

Soongmak,

 

A very, very good start. I wonder what else some of the more astute members will come up with ?

 

Cheers!

 

This debate surely centres around one of the most difficult areas of law that being defamation. I for one am no George Carmen (God rest his soul) but it is very difficut for "THE BOARD" to attempt to protect a person's reputation from harm that is a result of a false statement made by another poster or not. Furthermore, I am sure there are very few board members who have enough financial clout to bring an action against another board memeber for either slander or in this case libel! It is simply one of the evils of the internet particulalry on boards such as this.

 

Everyone has a reputation no matter what life we lead and IMO this thread will never reach a definitive conclusion because reputation concerns ones's own characterisation from the perspective of others, an actionable case of defamation requires the alleged innocent party to show that the alleged guilty party's characterisation of the alleged innocent party tended to make a third party think less of the alleged innocent party. Throw into that the arguments that surround written words as the media to express these charcteristical views and we enter a unenviable forum for Khun Sanuk!

 

My view is that the final call has to be for Khun Sanuk on these issues. KS, essentially, can pull the plug on any members account. In essence he is the judge and jury!

 

Going back to Soongmak's original board member rule clause, perhaps this attempt would suffice:

 

"Any board member who enters a post ("the Posting Party") which may reveal or identify any information whatsoever which the Posting Party may have in its control or possession concerning a fellow board member ("the Fellow Board Member) shall not do so in any circumstances. Such information shall include but not be limited to occupation, location or the affairs or dealings of the Fellow Board Member.

 

Any post construed by a moderator or any board member to reveal or identify such information shall be immediately deleted. All such posts shall lead to the Posting Party or Parties member account being terminated on Nanplaza.com"

 

This is all opinion but it is such a difficult debate on identifying where to draw the line. I for one dont mind someone sighting me for eyeing up some trim little craft down Nana or wherever... as I said above its all about the perspective of others.

 

Perhaps the way forward is for us to take on baord the "Have I Got News For You" (TV Show) approach and begin each sentence we write with "allegedley"

 

By the way...... UP THE BORO

[soongmak]

Hi JJ,

 

Good to see you out of lurking and posting again. I'd say forget about your self-imposed exile.

 

[color:"red"] Soongmak I agree totally that privacy should be kept out of respect for other members.

[/color]

Thanks.

 

[color:"red"] I don't feel that the Blackie thread is a good case to base your debate on. [/color]

 

Sorry, my case is not based on the Blackie thread. It did cause me to reflect on how the privacy of board members was protected. When I saw how Blackies'privacy was invaded , I couldn't help but thinking it was unfair. Mind you, I do not agree with his opinion that BGs are all thieves. But whether I agree with him is not the issue here. It is more how far are you willing to go to prove a point? Is it really necessary to make a persons existance on the board impossible by exposing knowledge about a person just to make a point?

 

In the Theft thread no one needed to launch an aggressive attack on Blackie. I thought the whole thread made it pretty clear that Blackie should first look at his own behaviour to explain why theft happened to him for the fifth time. Any person with a capability of logic reasoning could figure that out. To me, he was already down, and Fatbastard and BarTrippin just went in to kick him a few times in the gut. Completely unnecessary and over the top IMO. To me, it was more like an exercise in revenge, and that was something I didn't like to see and which is also in violation of the board rules.

 

[color:"red"] 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.

[/color]

 

No, his word is not accepted, at least not by me. You judge whether or not you find such character judgement important. To me it doesn't mean a thing. I rather form my judgement based on the things I've read and see and hear. Weather a person is consistant in his view points or not. If he is openminded and willing to listen to others who bring up valuable points. I don't expect you to be the type to trust another persons' character judgement either.

 

[color:"red"] 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. [/color]

 

You can call it hypocritical and maybe to an extent it is. I think most board members have enough creativity to question a posters' POV without getting personal. If you really need to get personal in order to win, you are losing sight of wat is really important on this board and that is comradery and a sense of respect for each others life. Just answer one question: How much credibility did Blackie's POV have with you before all this negative information was disclosed? I seriously doubt it that you dii agree with him on any accounts. So why was it necessary to violate his privacy?

 

In conclusion, I think that allowing posters to disclose private and negative information to be posted without the board members consent is a threat to this board. It also allows a discussion to get very personal and it lessens the quality of the thread. The Theft-thread was not closed without reason.

 

Cheers,

 

soongmak

[Guest]

>>>>>>>>>>>"Any board member who enters a post ("the Posting Party") which may reveal or identify any information whatsoever which the Posting Party may have in its control or possession concerning a fellow board member ("the Fellow Board Member) shall not do so in any circumstances. Such information shall include but not be limited to occupation, location or the affairs or dealings of the Fellow Board Member.<<<<<<<<<<

 

While maybe good in theory, is not practical in reality. Is too cut and dry, and would downgrade content here enourmously.

 

I don't think anyone wants to eliminate the fun stuff here that members experience in real life. What is at issue, is only the negative stuff. It's not been allowed in the past, and is only being questioned now, because of a recent post.

 

Why? Because in my estimation it fell through the cracks. Under most circumstances, personal negative remarks against Blackie would have been deleted.......denounsed as a personal flame, and dealt with. They were not. The reason for this can be complicated, at best. As mod's, we are not perfect here. Many of us Mod's are on different time zones around the world, which can mean zero moderation in a particular forum, at any given time. Eveyone here should know that a Mod in one forum, has zero power in another. I'm a Mod in 'Nightlife' forum. I cannot delete, or change any post, in any another forum. To complicate matters, we have varying rules, among the different forums here. What is acceptable in the "board bar", or "Trip Reports", might very well be unacceptable in "Relationships", or "Family" forums.

 

In the end, were there many problems surrounding this issue, before Blackie's post? No. The rule is to shoot down any post when getting too in-your-face personal, and revealing. This one got missed. Shit happens. We have rules in place to not allow this, and all but a very few, are caught in time.

 

Common sense dictates that we do not tear each other apart here. If you can't say something nice, then don't say anything at all. If you cannot make your point without making the opposing party look bad, then maybe better to look at your overall position, and your take on the issue.

 

HT