OOT rules clarification

[tonypaladino]

[censored] has made the most sense out of anyone in this thread.

[imported_anacardo]

El Diablo,

You absolutely reek of hubris. Were I either of the parties in question, I would have stumbled into a whole group of you people, slipped into a red haze and snapped awake hours later, clutching a meat cleaver with my arm stained red to the elbow.

Fondest regards,

Tronco de Anacardo y Chocolate.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'd bet for example that you wouldn't want J.A. Sucker or Boris to create a thread with your company name, or your picture, right? I'm sure there's funny ways they could work that info in, but there's an expected level of privacy that people should be able to expect. IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a pretty damned good post.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, nolanfan is implying that two very dissimilar things are similar.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point was that people have their boundaries, and once they have been made clear (and, despite my relative unfamiliarity with the land of OOT I believe the parties involved in this one have made their respective stances clear), then even the most highly respected posters shouldn't be starting threads about such subject matter.

Much in the same way that I wouldn't care if someone posted my pic or where I worked, but wouldn't ever post that information about someone whom I knew to be very privacy-oriented. Everyone has their boundaries, and it's important (to me) that we treat each other with enough respect in regards to these.

I didn't read El. D's original post, so I don't know whether it was made with an understanding that these individuals wanted to remain private or not (I doubt that it was, as I don't see Diablo as being malicious without provocation), and I don't think he should have been banned for the post -- but I think that there should be some consensus reached as to what should be posted in regards to rumors about others, and that consensus should be followed.

With regards to information that has a sensitive history, it would seem most prudent to me just to leave it be, and not bring it back to the top of OOT.

Rob

[Beer and Pizza]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, I love that picture.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
[censored] has made the most sense out of anyone in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it interesting that there are so many different takes on what, if anything, should have happened here. This tells me that issues like this one fall into the grayest area of general policy.

[tonypaladino]

I was kinda hoping that this thread would be about the stupidity of not being able to mention the word "poker"

[imported_anacardo]

[ QUOTE ]
I was kinda hoping that this thread would be about the stupidity of not being able to mention the word "poker"

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. Are you familiar at all with OP's style?

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
The point was that people have their boundaries, and once they have been made clear (and, despite my relative unfamiliarity with the land of OOT I believe the parties involved in this one have made their respective stances clear), then even the most highly respected posters shouldn't be starting threads about such subject matter.

Much in the same way that I wouldn't care if someone posted my pic or where I worked, but wouldn't ever post that information about someone whom I knew to be very privacy-oriented. Everyone has their boundaries, and it's important (to me) that we treat each other with enough respect in regards to these.

I didn't read El. D's original post, so I don't know whether it was made with an understanding that these individuals wanted to remain private or not (I doubt that it was, as I don't see Diablo as being malicious without provocation), and I don't think he should have been banned for the post -- but I think that there should be some consensus reached as to what should be posted in regards to rumors about others, and that consensus should be followed.

With regards to information that has a sensitive history, it would seem most prudent to me just to leave it be, and not bring it back to the top of OOT.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty much what I was trying to say. I also don't think a banning was appropriate, as I think there's a warning that could have been done.

I'll admit that Diablo and [censored] raised some valid points as well, as I couldn't have seen that PM of course, and I didn't see all of the original posts along the way leading to this. Not that that would stop me from having an opinion, of course.

[tonypaladino]

In what way do you mean that?

[IndieMatty]

Tony,
Re. Poker. Your're a good poster, you're allowed in context. The general ban was made for people who couldn't discern between what is proper and not.

All,

Let me use this as an opportunity to point all OOTiots to an excellent thread about El Diablo here, who is as I stated yesterday, clearly losing his mind.

Dinner
Best,
Matt