I am in 100% agreement with this statement, and with the original warning.
I cannot see how anyone could reasonably say that it wasn’t a jerk move.
…says the person posting anonymously…
Agree with this. There are some mods who are known for being a little quick on the trigger, but I honestly don’t remember him ever before giving a warning but I’m fine with this one.
If that didn’t qualify as breaking the “Don’t be a jerk” rule, then nothing does.
Did you read the thread in question? He was repeatedly saying the woman should be exposed for being a “gold digger”, and implied that he thought it would be okay to harass her. His intentions for posting her name were obvious.
Could’ve fooled me.
Shocking, I know. But it’s true.
In my opinion, Miller handled it right. Revealing an alleged rape victim’s name is clearly a jerk move and should be against board policy.
But as far as I know, nobody on this board has ever done it before. So while it’s an obvious and sensible policy, it is essentially a new policy. And therefore the first violation of this policy should only result in a warning and explicit statement of the policy rather than a note.
As a moderator, I do have to add one thing here.
The OP was clearly violating the “don’t be a jerk” rule. But what concerned me even more than that was whether or not he violated the law as well. So I did some digging.
What I found was that many states have passed various “rape shield” laws. IANAL, but my understanding of it is that the OP violated those laws by identifying the victim in a public forum. Fortunately for the OP, it turns out that those laws have been struck down in court on constitutional grounds. So, as far as I can tell, the OP didn’t actually break the law, and I don’t have to send an e-mail up the chain of command warning the owners of the SDMB about potential legal troubles.
Still, the fact that several states have tried to pass laws against doing exactly what the OP did should make it pretty obvious that it’s not a nice thing to do. Not only does it violate the “don’t be a jerk” rule, but by encouraging harassment of a rape victim it also breaks the rule against harassment in general.
This is one of the worst violations of the “don’t be a jerk” rule that I’ve seen in my time on this board. The OP’s complete lack of repentance, and indeed lack of belief that he has done anything wrong, has also been noted.
Or maybe the other way around? 
I think I understand what you were saying there even though it appears the options were crossed in writing it. I disagree though.
It’s a sad, sad world we live in if we excuse inapproriate behavior for which we have not provided an “explicit statement of policy” beforehand.
That’s one of the reasons we have the “Don’t be a jerk” rule. We can’t predict in advance all the multifarious ways that people can discover to be jerks. They’re quite inventive that way. I don’t think anyone would have imagined in advance we would need a rule about not doxxing rape victims. (I don’t think we actually need one now, since this is such a rare occurrence.)
We can’t be expected to come up with explicit rules against every possible scenario out there. While we don’t have any rule specifically forbidding the doxing of rape victims, this does fall under several other parts of the SDMB registration agreement:
[QUOTE=SDMB registration agreement as of 12/21/2014]
We have one guiding principle: Don’t be a jerk.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=SDMB registration agreement as of 12/21/2014]
You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use the SDMB to post any material that you know or should know is false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, threatening, invasive of a person’s privacy, or in violation of U.S. law.
[/QUOTE]
This was both harassing and an invasion of a person’s privacy.
I personally don’t see that we need to amend the rules in this case.
(ETA - Colibri’s post wasn’t there when I started typing)
OP should be banned from discussing rape or sexual assault completely, if not outright removed from the member rolls.
The OP should be banned from discussing women.
By a person posting anonymously without even a human readable handle -
Its anonymous users all the way down!
¯_(ツ)_/¯
I don’t know what that means -
The OP’s behavior is notorious on this board for slamming women he sees as “gold diggers” and supporting sports stars no matter what. For years, despite the collective opprobrium of other posters in threads he posts in, this behavior has continued undiminished. I hope and trust that the moderators are considering this history in determining the outcome of this issue.
Not much to add here in my defense that hasn’t already been said. This is the perfect application of the “don’t be a jerk” rule: to cover behavior so obviously and unambiguously beyond the pale that we never considered the need to make an explicit rule against it. And it’s not exactly like this came out of the blue. He’d just recently been enjoined from discussing sports-related rape accusations in Game Room threads. Most people would take that as a hint to back off on the subject in general. He decided to double down in a different forum.
Needless to say, the OP’s request is refused, and his “compromise” rejected.