If the poster had told you, in confidence, away from the Boards, i would support your decision 100 percent. No-one is asking you to break someone’s trust. Similarly, i’ve been in email and IM contact with SDMB members before, and would never bring any private or sensitive information from those exchanges onto the Board itself.
I’m talking specifically here about someone who declared his imminent imprisonment on these Boards for the whole world to see. In such cases, there is no trust to be broken, no secret to be kept.
It’s made very clear in the rules and FAQ of this Board that what we post here becomes public information, and will not be removed or redacted later if we have sudden pangs of regret. I post with that knowledge firmly in mind, and so should everyone else who participates here. There are some things that, given a chance, i might remove from my posting history, but the fact is that i posted them, and accept the fact that they’re out there for all to see.
As Aesiron points out, it would be rather unseemly to bring up stuff from the past simply out of a desire to badger or harass or troll a particular member, but if the reference is directly germane to the issue, i just don’t see why we should walk on eggshells regarding information that is already part of this message board’s history and its database.
Of course, if someone does want to take a more censorious approach, and prefers not to make references to past incidents, then that’s their right. Each person is free to decide what to say and not say on these boards, and no-one can be forced to divulge the information. But you’d think that the same circumspection might also lead those people to simply STFU and not post to the thread at all, instead of making a post that says, in effect, “I know the answer, but i’m not going to tell you what it is.”
I agree. Anyway, if you legitimately wanted to protect somebody’s privacy, why even alert people to the existence of a post that you believe compromises said privacy?
As I’ve already said, that which is allowed and that which is wise, or even kind, are not necessarily the same thing.
To what issue? What if the OP is “who on this Board has ever gotten drunk and had Hot Monkey Sex with an actual monkey?” and we know that, well yes, a drunk someone did talk about that some years ago, but it would be a fair bet to say that they would prefer not to be reminded of it. The fact that someone else wants to know that information doesn’t make it relevant in any meaningful sense, nor does it make it smart or nice for those of us who remember to gratifiy the OP’er by bringing it up again.
IMO, one of the least attractive attributes of this Board is that you set a foot wrong and say or admit something off-color or stupid or whatever, and by God the Board is never fucking going to let you forget it. Put it behind you? Good fucking luck. Not so long as there are people who will take the fact that you posted it in the first place to mean they have a license to bring it up for all eternity. Here, you will always be That Guy.
And you’d think that some other people would see some value to posting in a way to get posters to consider whether answering the OP is actually a good idea, or whether the thread is likely to raise some ghosts that might be better left in their graves. I can’t expect everyone else to make the same decision in that regard that I do, but I am not out of line to encourage them to actually think about it before responding.
It’s not merely “I know the answer, but I’m not going to tell you,” full stop. It’s “I know then answer, but I’m not going to tell you and here’s why.” Those are not the same thing, much as you might like to pretend that they are.
Point out where I said it never happens in real life. And explain to me how “that happens in real life too!” somehow erases the maxim “just because you can doesn’t mean you should.”
I make neither claim, although you’re free to infer whatever you like. My point, since it clearly whistled past your ear, is that the behavior you’re berating the Board for is, in fact, human nature. Make of that what you will.
And my point, since it whistled past your ear, is that “human nature” by itself is no excuse for anything. So there’s really not much to make of it, is there?
Excuse? No. Yet another claim I did not make. However, as an explanation for behavior, it is perfectly valid. Your wording would seem to imply that somehow you believe this behavior is unique to this board.
Am I messing with you? I suppose I am. But, it’s only to make the point that you should, perhaps, choose your words with more care. This IS the Dope, after all.
This is complete bullshit. My “wording” implies nothing of the kind. I have limited my comments to behaviors on the Board because that’s what we’re talking about: behaviors on the Board. YOU are the one who brought up “real life” and “human nature,” not me. I have no obligation to generalize the discussion to all of “real life” and “human nature” just because YOU want to. Just because you indefensibly infer something, doesn’t mean I in any way implied it.
I chose my words with care enough in the first place. I have no obligation to anticipate every moronic interpretation that could possibly be put on them. And considering that you admit to messing with me, you can save your stupid little smiley.
You act as though i gleefully wait for opportunities to bring up people’s past indiscretions in order to cause them pain or embarrassment. But i’m not talking here about stalking someone and waiting for the chance to remind them of their past; i’m talking about a specific example where information given on this board can provide an answer to a question asked on this board. And i’m also talking about the silliness of a strategy that (a) lets on that one actually knows the answer to the question, then (b) goes out of one’s way to post about the issue, and (c) having dangled the bait, makes clear that one isn’t actually going to reveal any information.
Also, your whole argument is predicated on the notion that there is something innately morally reprehensible about having been in prison, and that such information is somehow inherently shameful or damning. I certainly don’t believe that, and i’ll bet that plenty of people around here feel similarly.
First of all, there are plenty of people in prison in the United States for committing crimes that should, in my opinion, even be on the books. If someone told me that they had been to prison for non-violent drug offenses, i’d be far more likely to feel sympathy for them than to judge them morally deficient.
Not only that, but i also believe in the notion of having paid one’s debt to society, and in the idea of rehabilitation. Even if someone went to prison for something that i find morally reprehensible, i’m also willing to accept that the experience might have changed them for the better. Obviously there are some crimes that are easier to forgive than others, but i simply don’t see an admission of having been to prison as something inherently shameful or deserving of opprobrium in the here and now.
Look, I never “acted as though” anything. I merely posted in a way that I hoped would make people think about the OP. You then decided to attack me as if my post was unreasonable and I should “STFU.” So you’ll have to carry your own baggage here; don’t try to hand it off to me. I think my point has been made pretty clear, and I’m not talking about stalking people. I understand that in this case "information given on this board can answer the question asked. Without busting the chops of the OP’er, which is not my intention, my point is that just because someone asks doesn’t mean we have to answer, and there may be reason not to. Everyone has to make that determination themselves, but it’s not like it’s completely unreasonable to encourage people to consider it before answering. I don’t actually care if you consider this “silly” or not; I don’t post with an eye towards what you might think about anything I say.
This obviously is NOT the predicate of my argument. Just because some people would prefer not to talk about their time in prison doesn’t mean everyone feels that way. But the reverse is also true: Just because some people are okay talking about it, doesn’t mean that every one is. Why is it more unreasonable for me to point out that some people might not be okay with it, than it is for you to assume that everyone must be okay with it? This doesn’t have anything to do with a person’s morality, or the crime they’ve served time for. The fact that there are some crimes you personally don’t think should be criminal is completely irrelevant. The fact that you think it’s No Big Deal to have served time doesn’t mean everyone else feels the same – especially those who actually have done time. For them, there may be myriad reasons to not want to talk about that particular experience that have nothing to do with feeling morally ashamed of it.
I’m a 20-time convicted homicidal-suicidal-murderer with 32 drunk driving charges, 3 tax evasion cases pending, and 627 charges for soliciting prostitutes. Alas, I haven’t been to jail yet since I joined the Dope.
If we were to look at my history pre-Dope…that would be a different story.
Sure you did. You said, and i quote: “Here, you will always be THAT GUY.”
But you did answer. You said, in effect, “Yes, there is someone, but i’m not going to tell you who it is.”
Never expected you to; doesn’t mean i’m not going to tell you what i think. I mainly brought it up because you’re generally a person i find worth reading on these boards, and you had never previously struck as this irrational. We learn something everything day, don’t we?
And if that’s the case, then they shouldn’t fucking bring it up on the board in the first place. I can’t believe that you are so obtuse as to ignore this very simple fact.
As i said before, i can’t change the way you post. You’ll obviously continue to do what you please. I merely wanted to point out how lame it is. I have, and i’m done.
What I meant was that if you (general you) confess to once getting drunk and gluing live chinchillas to your ass, around here you (general you) will always be That Guy. And frankly I think that the fact that I was talking about a generalized “you” and not you in particular is pretty clear from that paragraph – which starts with “IMO.”
AND I explained why I wasn’t going to tell, which is the crucial detail you continue to leave out.
We certainly do. For example, you’re the sort of person who drops by MPSIMS just to tell someone they are “lame,” “irrational,” and “obtuse” and should “STFU.” That’s information I didn’t have before, so it’s been a real educational thread all around.
But I don’t think the fact is all that simple. As I’ve already said, people may post things they later regret, or share things they wish they hadn’t shared. I don’t see why having said it once should serve as justification to rake up every incident or mistake, no matter how painful, no matter how many years ago. As I’ve also already said, just because you – general you – can doesn’t mean you should.
You’re damn right I will. And the fact that you don’t see my point doesn’t mean I didn’t have one or that it isn’t valid.
I honest to God do not understand what part of “Just because you can bring every thing back up doesn’t mean you should” is giving everyone such trouble. I’m not even asking that everyone agree with me on making that judgment; I’m just pointing out that it’s something worth considering before responding. What’s so hard about that?
If that’s all you had said, it wouldn’t give me any trouble. The problem is that you specifically told everyone that there was in fact a poster who had gone to jail. If your goal was to protect this person’s privacy, I don’t see why it was necessary to do that.
In short, your post reminded me of internet discussions about how a magic trick is done. Invariably, somebody posts that they know the trick but will not reveal it. Gee thanks. Besides gratuitously demonstrating your superiority, what’s the point?
He came back and posted for 2 years after that. THEN, his ISP changed (due to a new domestic situation), and he forgot his password. He signed up with a different but very similar username, and pretty much announced it in his first post. Among the accusations of sock pupperty, were several condemnations of his evilness for trying to pass himself off as a much beloved poster. So, the second username was banned, and instead of trying to straighten it out with the mods, he said “to hell with it.”
ETA: not only did he like limericks, he could create them instantly, on any subject.
