if you are able to get her name from the slimiest of websites that does not mean we have to put ourselves on their level. Her name was not released publicly.
As for whether the case has merit, that isn’t nearly decided. Her lawyer leaving the case doesn’t have any bearing on the merits. He is not involved in the investigation. If you want to discuss that you can bring it up in the thread. At a later date if she is named and the circumstances of the investigation change then the discussion will of course change. None of that has any bearing on the mod action as it happened here.
What isn’t accurate? That I didn’t know who Kane was? That I hadn’t read the full pit thread? That I wasn’t curious?
You haven’t answered either of my questions. Her name was in the public domain so did he doxx the lady in question? And is it relevant that he could be banned when potentially the opinion that drove his actions could actually be correct?
If it had been one of your close friends, or even a family member, how would you feel about her name being released? (or re-released on message boards)
Whether or not someone is a friend of mine should have nothing to do with board policy. If it was a family member, and someone knowingly did this, then I can see mod action being appropriate. But that wasn’t the case. If we had to worry about whether or not we might be hurting someone’s family member ever time we posted something, not much would be posted in the Pit.
But that is really neither here nor there. If the info is really in the public domain, and the MB is not in legal jeopardy, my point stands.
It’s not, which is the problem. He claims to have read it off a document he saw someone holding on TV and few other sleazy sites have also picked up on it. That hardly makes it publicly released. If it was public no one would have had a problem with it breaking any board rules.
No, the point of a Don’t Be a Jerk policy is to tell people who are being jerks to either stop or go somewhere else. Just like in a bar, at a sporting event, or a neighborhood block party.
When I was in journalism school we were taught that one of the meanings of the First Amendment is that anyone can start their own newspaper and say whatever they want, but that doesn’t mean you have to let them say it in YOUR newspaper. It’s even easier to start a new message board than a newspaper.
Ok I should say your main points were not accurate. I believe you didn’t know who Kane was and you didn’t read the thread.
Before forming an opinion I did research to see how easy it was to find her name soon after Dale posted it. This was before he was warned. I watched the press conference. Her name was not displayed in any way that could be read by the tv audience. I did searches on multiple browsers. Without having her name already I could not find her name. With her name I found mention on a couple of small slimy misoginistic websites and Dale’s thread. I’m confident that at the time of the posting her name was not publicly distributed.
Irrelevant to the current discussion and already mentioned in the appropriate thread. If you want to discuss the subject there is a six page Pit thread.
Which is completely irrelevant to this thread. Whether or not she’s after a payout or the most victimized women since Eve doxxing her is a jerk move and sanctions apply.
I’m on the fence on this one. I assume that once that photo hit the interwebs that the accuser’s name would be all over the web so what’s the difference if dalej42 posts it. Strange thing is despite the leak, it seems to be pretty difficult to find her name with just a casual search. I think dalej42 assumed that the information would be readily available and it’s not. Because of that a warning may be overblown and maybe just a note and/or redacting the name is sufficient.
Now if the warning were for encouraging harrassing her, that’s a different issue.
I don’t think that the Chicago Tribune published her name. The version I saw only reported that the lawyer mentioned her first name inadvertently, due to exhaustion.