Seeking Clarification: Responding to MPSIMS Requests for Help With Adverse Informati

We don’t want to make any more hard and fast rules than we must, for the simple reason that they get spilt into increasingly fine hairs. Before ya know it, volumes of laws, opinions and… ::shudders:: Ain’t gonna go there.
The basic rule of whatever happens IRL stays IRL actually identifies the core tenet. We have no way of 1. keeping track of which Dopers know one another and 2. knowing what those relationships are.* They could be range from failed romances to spats at Dopefests to clerk/customer confrontations at Best Buy. We have absolutely no capablity or interest in monitoring such things. Ain’t any of our business.

Pitting another Doper anonymously for real life reasons is an extremely fine line that probaby couldn’t be walked effectively for very long. If it’s discreet–generic-- enough to “pass”, why bother posting it here? And if it’s not, it can devolve into a widespread guessing game of suspicions (“You’re talking about X, aren’t you!”), quickly followed by a technicolor eruption of personalities, accusations, choosing sides, counter-accusations and ill will.

Since we couldn’t possibly monitor such a rule (*see above), we decline to undertake it. The more general rule covers it sufficiently.

Veb

we do disagree. Until there;s an admin/mod who states that the rules about not pitting other dopers about RL encounters (ie if it didn’t happen here, don’t bring it here), I’ll continue to act as if there is. You’re welcome to do differently.

I also disagree that his purpose in opening the original thread was to trash ‘moochers’ in general. IT was highly specific as to an event, a specific person, their actions etc. ISTR that he mentioned his desire to ‘let’ MM know his actions were not appreciated, however, as I noted apparently that wasn’t quite it, since there’d been emails to appraise MM of that notion.

I’m not kicking this horse further. I will continue to act as if it’s not ok to pit dopers about something that happened IRL, even if I don’t mention the person’s name. Hell who am I kidding? I don’t (generally) start pit threads about other dopers (participate, yes, have done that, but don’t recall ever starting a thread about a specific doper)

Why bother posting it? Why not post it, if the fact that the person is a Doper has no bearing on the OP’s ire? IOW, what difference does it make for the purposes of the complaint?

And lemme tell you something, wring. I’ve been in MonkeyMule’s position on this very board. Someone started a thread about me without naming me. No one in the thread mentioned my name, either, and I’m pretty sure some of them knew who was being discussed.

If I suddenly revealed that I was the subject of that thread, would that make the thread unethical, somehow? Of course not.

There was nothing inherently wrong with that thread. It bothered me, but so what? Someone’s always bothered by a thread.

thanks for the clarification/interpretation Veb.

so it appears that I’m incorrect about Bildo breaking the rule, apparently ‘cause the object involved didn’t post in the thread saying "you talkin’ bout me"

fair enough. I won’t bring it up again. Sorry Bildo I was wrong to say you broke the rule. I won’t comment further.

Interesting – I came away with a completely different interpretation of what Veb said. To me, it reads, since they can’t possible “monitor” which anonymous posts might be about another poster with any eficiency (by virtue of their anonymity), postings of that nature would therefore fall under “The basic rule of whatever happens IRL stays IRL.” Or, don’t post shit about other dopers that happens IRL, anonymously or otherwise.

And yes, dan, I think whoever pitted you anonymously for something that happened outside these forums was in violation of the rule, too, and is, to me, unethical, as well.

Unethical or not, it’s not against the rules.

Beginning a thread that you say is about a Doper whom you won’t name (regarding IRL meetings, of course)is against the rules. That’s the distinction I’m trying to make.

While I appreciate the efforts you are all making to hypothesize my motivation in posting the Pit thread last September, may I humbly suggest that you are missing one major motivation that happens to be the actual reason I posted the thread: I was fucking pissed at the situation and wanted to vent.

I also thought that others might appreciate the story and have related insights or anecdotes to share, an idea that is proved by the subsequent course of the thread. I didn’t name MonkeyMule because I thought it would add nothing to the thread and just turn it into an unpleasant and embarrassing slugfest over his particular merits or demerits. The fact that he would most likely see what I thought of his conduct when I posted was really a side issue. Had he privately apologized to me, I would have reported this in the thread, again without naming names.

Admittedly, the idea that I posted the Pit thread because I thought it would be a good Pit thread and useful place to vent does not have the appeal of my having done it in some subtle scheme to skirt the rules and embarrass MonkeyMule while simultaneously not embarrassing him. However, it does have the advantage of accuracy.

(By the way, when I posted my comment in the MPSIMS thread yesterday, I was well aware that MonkeyMule had posted there. It is my opinion that by doing so he adopted the appeal originally made by TubaDiva.)

I can see that that’s the distinction you’re trying to make, I’m just not agreeing with it. If the basic rule is, “what happens IRL stays IRL,” then pitting someone who posts here for an IRL encounter, even though you don’t mention them by name or even imply that it was at a dopefest, you’ve still broken the rule. Veb does not say there’s no rule against anonymously pitting a fellow doper for a RL event. She says that doing so falls under the basic rule of “what happens IRL stays IRL.” IOW, technically it is against the rules.

Veb, are the mods/admins discussing a possible official ruling on extending the very lack of interest in monitoring IRL aspects of the boards to cover requests for charity?

I regret to say that while Tuba may have posted as exclusively a doper, had something gone wrong and there been a delay in unveiling certain relevant aspects of the questionable reputation of the potential recipient, her having posted the OP as an admin would definitely have come into question, and she would have been responsible for having misled people, despite the very generous nature of her intentions.

Also, I didn’t find an official response anywhere to Fenris’ very important question: can regular dopers post charity threads like this? I wonder along with a subsequent post that had a doper posted that OP, and received the same NYC Doper response, the thread would likely not have made it past 10 posts. And the closing mod comment would likely not have been kind towards the lapse.

My personal opinion is that charity requests be kept entirely off the boards. Dopers have enough of a network available to them via email that they could easily get as much if not much more bandwidth that way, and it avoids the possibility of any future UGLY AS ALL HELL situations like this, because the person emailing asking for help KNOWS he/she is vouching for the person in need.

Here, Tuba did not need to think twice about whether she vouched for him or not, because the assumption is that any interested doper would decide for themselves. Problem is, her APPEARANCE of having vouched for him almost assuredly would have left other generous dopers in a very naive position had another better informed angle been introduced.

Given the thorniness of situations like these that the boards have witnessed in the recentish past, perhaps a new rule would be in order. Personal vouching in any charity case should be imperative, and before you vouch, you’d better well know exactly what you’re vouching for. No matter how noble the theory of generosity with no strings attached is.

I think Billdo should have emailed TubaDiva before posting, then she could come up with an appropriate strategy. The urgency seemed to come from the notion that someone might offer aid to MM before Billdo’s opinion of him was known. Frankly, the notion that help might be offered to someone undeserving doesn’t fill me with the peculiar horror that it apparently fills some of you with.

To quote Shaw, or more precisely, Eliza Doolittle’s father in Pygmalion:

Everybody’s always going on about the deserving poor all the time. Well, let me tell you, the undeserving poor eats just as much as the deserving poor, and they drinks … quite a bit more.

Perhaps Tuba should have emailed a NY doper (I believe she used to know a(n ex) NY moderator, even) instead of posting a request for someone she knew so little about?

Reading this and your subsequent posts, I agree that a general admonition was appropriate. However, unlike Billdo I still have some deep concerns which come from the tone you used. Your “thank you” to Shayna’s suggestion that email was a proper way to address probative information about the background of the request has increased those concerns rather than decreased them.

I speak only for myself here, but I suspect at least some people might agree with the argument I’m about to make.

This was not a thread about one’s sexual peccadilloes or how far one can cause a yeti to hit a penguin. It was a request for aid, sanctioned (as all such threads are) by the administration of this message board, for a member of the community. It was a request that members’ limited resources be directed toward a specific purpose.

If I’m to respond to such requests in the future, I must to know that the core mission of this message board is not being contravened and that information which might be probative to me in making a decision is not being discouraged or squelched. So help me get over the hump here, please. Here’s what I need:

A specific, unambiguous statement that each of the posts prior to your admonition was proper within the rules of this message board – that your warning was entirely preemptive and had no backwards-looking component to it.

A statement that it is the policy of this message board that specific factually correct information which a reasonable person might consider relevant prior to making a decision to assist an administratively sanctioned appeal for help is encouraged, not discouraged.

A statement that the proper place for such information, whether or not it advances the cause of the appeal, is in the thread where assistance is requested, not in another thread or in email.

Absent each of these, I will be unable to help with future requests on this board.

It’s not as simple as “what happens IRL stays IRL,” and it’s silly to presume so. Let’s let Veb clarify for herself, okay? Please don’t try to tell me what she means.

I have not broken a rule if I post a thread about some asshole that cut me off in traffic, even if that asshole was a Doper - as long as I don’t a) state it was a Doper and b) name the person.

If I don’t do either of those, how in the holy hell could you possibly know it did involve a Doper?

That’s why that general rule is more useful as a guideline than as a rule. What I think Veb seemed to be saying is that they’ll have to look at each case individually anyway and that we’d be discouraged from starting such threads. But, as she did state, it’s not a rule they could monitor too easily, anyway.

Unfortunately, what happened IRL didn’t stay IRL. The original thread* was started by a doper about a fellow doper**. Both parties exist both here and in the outside world. Everyone involved is a real person. By choosing to bring a person who is known to fellow dopers into the limelight, for better or for worse, he becomes the focus of attention. It’s impossible to have it both ways.

I wish this whole affair had never occured, but since it did shouldn’t we try and learn some lessons?

  1. Charity (to use a very loose term) threads. Can we make clear that these sorts of posts have been cleared with the powers that be? A “the mods/admins/etcs have given the big AOK” posted by another admin might work.

  2. When admins/mods post these sort of threads. Can they make it clear that thay are posting as regular dopers and not in any sort of official capacity? I, for one, was unclear as to the “authority” of the original thread. Something as simple as <Mod Hat off> </Mod hat on> would make this crystal clear.

It’s definitely not one of the Dope’s finer moments.

I also wish MonkeyMule the best of luck getting back on his feet. Alas, there’s not much I can do from Texas.

Lastly, a big thank you to every mod/admin/etc. I bet you guys hate this kind of thread, but you make sure this board is the best one out there, regardless.

*By original, I’m referring to TubaDiva’s thread.

**I have never had IRL contact with anyone involved in either the original thread or in this one. I don’t have any opinions either way re. the original thread.

Then don’t. We can’t and won’t supply the equivalent of The Code of Federal Regulations, as you know quite well.

Some posters will have ideas about either asking for or offering assistance to other Dopers. They’ll fly those ideas past us, and we’ll decide on a case by case basis. That’s the step to winnow out flagrant commercial ploys, worthy but numerous favorite charities, etc. Such threads don’t imply any kind of official endorsement, no matter who posts 'em. They provide nothing more than a chance for Dopers to respond–or not.
They’re an opportunity for to assist, nothing more. What they aren’t are invitations to dissect the personalities, pasts and relative worthiness of the person, all comers welcome. Anyone desiring more complete information about the person and circumstances can ask by e-mail or whatever. Lacking substantive or sufficiently reassuring information, anyone can simply decide not to assist. Indivividuals can decide their own comfort levels. If they’re above what can be provided publically on the board, the answer will probably be “no”. Fair enough.

Such threads don’t have to turn into claws-out catfights, but if they do, we’re shutting them down. And for all the parsing, that’s exactly what Cajun Man did. It was getting ugly, it didn’t belong in MPSIMS, and he issued a generalized admonition, no personal warnings, about the direction the thread was taking. Nothing more.

For those espousing rules changes:
Consider alternatives very carefully. Do you really want all “help” threads forbidden? Think carefully about all the gift exchanges, sponsored memberships, the “gonna be visiting ___, could you show me around, recommend really cheap motels or maybe let me crash on your couch?” threads, all those casual, friendly interactions.
If you really want the bar lowered for personal “he said, she said” background as information such threads–how far?
To what extent should the lowest common denominator rule, and what will actually be gained or lost by a change?
This is not the Dope’s finest hour.

Veb

Look, dan, I’ve already said I’m not going around and around with you anymore. I only posted again to address wring in that I felt she misinterpreted Veb’s post. And now you’re just being deliberately obtuse. First of all, I love how you admonish me to let Veb clarify for herself, and then close by making your own absurd interpretation of her words. There’s a long-standing rule here that things that go on IRL between dopers are verboten in the Pit. You have acknowledged that you are fully aware of that rule in post #114 of this thread. Quit playing games with the rules and pretending that it’s above-board to attempt to skirt the rule by not using names, when you know damn well that that’s not at all within the spirit or intent of the rule to begin with. Why you’d want to condone doing something to manipulatively get away with something you know the moderators and administrators don’t want happening here is beyond me.

That’s all from me. Goodnight.

Regarding Billdo’s original thread about MonkeyMule’s mooching: All of this talk about whether Billdo violated some sort of rule by discussing an off-board incident on the board misses the point.

A common “people management” technique is to issue a general admonition, even though it is mainly directed at one person. This avoids embarrassing the individual, gives the individual notice that his misbehavior has been noted, and serves as a reminder to everyone else that such misbehavior won’t be tolerated. If the individual doesn’t address the problem, then other measures can be used. But the “general warning” usually works quite well.

So, I’m guessing Billdo meant that thread as that kind of general admonition, figuring that it would find its target. (And of course, as he already said, that it would make for a good thread on its own merits.) It didn’t work. Other measures, like private emails, were taken. The results were not good. And MonkeyMule wound up on a bunch of people’s shit lists. Seems to me like community self-policing worked as it was supposed to.

Shayna and wring have repeatedly said that the mods would certainly have shut it down if they had known it was about a real-life incident concerning a doper. But what makes them think that the mods didn’t know about it? I don’t know how to say it in official logic-speak, but just because there’s no evidence that they knew it was about a doper, it doesn’t mean that they didn’t actually know. They could well have known and just chosen not to do anything about it. Stating what the mods certainly would have done smacks of junior-modding. Especially in a case where the rules are intentionally flexible and everything is taken on a case-by-case basis.
And to those of you suggestiing that Billdo is pissed over the mooching of a mere hamburger–that’s ridiculous. Billdo’s generous to a fault. I suppose he does expect a “payback” for his kind and charitable acts, but not in the way that so many of you seem to think.

Billdo expects that his generosity will be repaid with generosity–but not necessarily to him. He’s a giving person, and he gives freely. He expects others to give freely. If they happen to give back to him directly, cool. If they give to others, that’s cool too. If everyone gives generously, then everyone will receive generously.

I codified this philosophy in what I call “Karmic Moving.” I’ll gladly help someone move. When they thank me, they usually offer to help me move, if I should ever need the help. I tell them to help someone else. Then, over the inevitable beer and pizza, I explain my theory: If they “repay” me by helping others, then those others will “repay” them by helping still others, and so on, until it’s like a giant pyramid scheme of willing movers. I suppose Karmic Moving works, because every time I’ve had to move, I’ve had people come out of the woodwork to help me. (And Billdo’s schlepped way more than his fair share of my crap over the years.)

That’s why habitual moochers piss him off so much. They screw up the system. Besides, I don’t think his assessment of MonkeyMule was based entirely on one incident. If I recall correctly, he had mooched unapologetically on several previous occasions.

Knowing Billdo as well as I do, I can say with certainty that he weighed the decision to speak out very very carefully. I haven’t talked to him about this (he called me earlier, but I blew him off because I was watching Escape from New York. I’m such a jerk sometimes.) but when I do, I imagine that I’ll be subjected to a lengthy and detailed play-by-play of his decision making process. I expect that he weighed the pros and cons carefully. One of the obvious cons is that a lot of people might think he’s an asshole for saying something. I guess that was outweighed by the fact that he had the opportunity to save the larger community of NY dopers some grief. And the idea that he had some vindictive motive is just laughable.

p.s. to Billdo: You got cojones, man. I never would have had the guts to speak up like you did. Rock on!

So for those who would argue that Billdo’s original post and/or his reply in Tuba’s thread went against the “what happens in real life stays in real life” rule, then how could Tuba’s thread not be construed as breaking the same rule?

Esprix

I don’t consider any of those threads to be “help” threads.

The sponsored memberships, IIRC, was a situation in which people willing to offer the dough posted, and people were free to contact them to take them up on it. Posts requesting sponsorships were directed to the main thread (where people were offering) in ATMB, weren’t they?

The gift exchanges are just that, exchanges (right? I mean, I never played, but I figured it wasn’t “let’s all send presents to one person,” I thought it was “I send someone something, someone sends me something.” I could, of course, be wrong).

The “gonna be visiting” threads are closer, I think, but I don’t know how many people take off on jaunts to far off lands and forget to save money for a hotel room (I know, I know…there are some). To me there is still a line there, though I guess I can’t accurately define it (especially not at 3AM).

Anyhow, as I’ve said, I don’t consider any of your examples as “charity” threads, and I see no reason, if a new rule was instituted, why good judgement could not be exercised, and a distinction made between your examples and true “charity” threads.

(Note: I’m not particularly for or against any rules changes, I haven’t made up my mind yet. The post just struck me as lumping all sorts of threads in as one type, and I saw no reason why that had to be.)

I think that Green Bean said some damn fine things. And since it has been mentioned:

This whole thing is about character references, right? Well Billdo has it in spades from me. When I went to New York, he went out of his way to make my visit some of the best damn couple of days I’ve had. The guy is thoughtful, sensitive and as generous as hell, both with time and money.

And it wasn’t just him either. Veb casually tossed away manhattan’s caution that

Well let me tell you: that would be one hell of a loss to the boards. Because manhattan invented the idea of going out of your way to help people.

I’d start naming further NY doper names but I’d be missing the point because the whole lot of them were some of the most accommodating, charitable, generous people I’ve met.

So what? So if someone has got on the wrong side of them, they must have worked at it. And it’s pissing me off to see insinuations that they are too cheap to put up with the loss of a burger or something and are now out to wreck the burger eater’s reputation. Shame on all of you that would suggest such a thing.

There is no way that Billdo would do something as difficult as posting negatively in someone’s charity thread unless he thought it was really important. He was braver than I am to do it and I fail to see how he or any other NY doper could have subsequently acted with more delicacy, refinement and maturity.

The rest of you should take a leaf from their book. They’ve been willing to make their point and let it lie. You should do the same.

pan