# The real life of posters: Private or public? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [February 19, 2013, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-life-of-posters-private-or-public/650798 "2013-02-19T15:40:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-life-of-posters-private-or-public/650798/61 "2013-02-19T19:53:57Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Or is there some other potential consequence I’m missing? **pchaos** beating up Dan Rather, “What’s the code word, Kenneth?” ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-life-of-posters-private-or-public/650798/62 "2013-02-19T19:54:27Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Then someone who isn’t **pchaos** will get a confusing voice mail from someone with an English accent, I imagine. Or is there some other potential consequence I’m missing? Yes, the consequences (right number or wrong) are pretty minimal. Still, this isn’t something we want posters to do. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-life-of-posters-private-or-public/650798/63 "2013-02-19T20:00:03Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Saying you found something doesn’t mean much of anything. If this is the case, then what SL did was wrong because he told others how to replicate it, not necessarily because he reached out and called someone? I recognize that you later go on to make a distinction between finding someone’s info and acting on it - but to everyone aside from pC and SL, SL’s claim to have called pC is essentially the same as saying he found something - in that I mean **we don’t know whether he acted or didn’t act.** > [@Marley23](#): > > It would be unfair to punish **AClockworkMelon** if we weren’t sure he’s responsible. This all seems very sticky to me and I’m trying to process it, so forgive me if I go over some ground which you believe shouldn’t be gone over again; It seems to me that this suggests that, ultimately, the thing that SL did that was wrong was admitting to it on the board. Suppose if he was playing coy and couched all his terms with ‘hypothetically speaking’ (ie, he’s not directly admitting what he did, although he still tells others how to replicate it). It also seems wrong within the context of the thread. To explain (someone used this example, kind of): Let’s suppose that a dearly beloved doper suddenly goes missing. There is a thread about this doper where other dopers are trying to make sense out his disappearance. The SL of that thread says something along the lines of ‘hey, I did some googling and found out beloved doper’s real name and number. I called the number and left a message’. Is this as wrong as the SL pC incident? I’m not so sure. Clearly, privacy is still being invaded. Would the SL of that thread also be banned/suspended? ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-life-of-posters-private-or-public/650798/64 "2013-02-19T20:04:50Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Then someone who isn’t **pchaos** will get a confusing voice mail from someone with an English accent, I imagine. Or is there some other potential consequence I’m missing? The confusing message includes a “code word”. I’m thinking Homeland Security may be called in. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-life-of-posters-private-or-public/650798/65 "2013-02-19T20:09:34Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > It seems to me that this suggests that, ultimately, the thing that SL did that was wrong was admitting to it on the board. Suppose if he was playing coy and couched all his terms with ‘hypothetically speaking’ (ie, he’s not directly admitting what he did, although he still tells others how to replicate it). It seems to me that you’re suggesting that sometimes if you lie, you can get away with breaking rules. Does that mean the rule was wrong? ---
**Author:** ![GrandWino](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grandwino/32/67_2.png) [@GrandWino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrandWino)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-life-of-posters-private-or-public/650798/66 "2013-02-19T20:14:30Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > It seems to me that you’re suggesting that sometimes if you lie, you can get away with breaking rules. Does that mean the rule was wrong? [Do you really think someone would do that? Just go on the internet and tell lies?](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YWdD206eSv0) ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-life-of-posters-private-or-public/650798/67 "2013-02-19T20:17:41Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > If this is the case, then what SL did was wrong because he told others how to replicate it, not necessarily because he reached out and called someone? No, the issue is the phone call. I don’t think he told anyone how to do anything. He said he just went from a link that **AClockworkMelon** posted. > [@](#): > > I recognize that you later go on to make a distinction between finding someone’s info and acting on it - but to everyone aside from pC and SL, SL’s claim to have called pC is essentially the same as saying he found something - in that I mean **we don’t know whether he acted or didn’t act.** You’re right that we are taking **Simple Linctus** at his word, but I don’t have a problem doing that in this case. > [@](#): > > It seems to me that this suggests that, ultimately, the thing that SL did that was wrong was admitting to it on the board. Suppose if he was playing coy and couched all his terms with ‘hypothetically speaking’ (ie, he’s not directly admitting what he did, although he still tells others how to replicate it). It also seems wrong within the context of the thread. We might’ve stepped in to discourage that, yes. > [@](#): > > To explain (someone used this example, kind of): Let’s suppose that a dearly beloved doper suddenly goes missing. There is a thread about this doper where other dopers are trying to make sense out his disappearance. The SL of that thread says something along the lines of ‘hey, I did some googling and found out beloved doper’s real name and number. I called the number and left a message’. I think that may have actually happened. And while we might treat that a little more gently that **Simple Linctus** ’s “investigation,” it’s not a good idea however well intentioned it might be. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-life-of-posters-private-or-public/650798/68 "2013-02-19T20:30:55Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > It seems to me that you’re suggesting that sometimes if you lie, you can get away with breaking rules. Does that mean the rule was wrong? No, of course not - but what exactly is under contention for discipline? I suppose that’s what I’m aiming at. I think we all agree that SL shouldn’t have called pC, but should that action be suspendable? If so, why exactly? Is it because calling pC was his implied intent or because he actually went ahead and called pC? Is it because soft moderation on this could lead others to do far worse? I’m just trying to piece this together, I’m not trying to provide anyone wiggle room or anything. > [@Marley23](#): > > No, the issue is the phone call. I don’t think he told anyone how to do anything. He said he just went from a link that **AClockworkMelon** posted. I think I interpret this a little differently than you (and that’s fine, we can disagree). To be sure, he didn’t give any step by step account, but (and maybe I’m conflating posters, in which case I would be wrong) didn’t he say he followed ACM’s posts and then based off of the username, did some googling? Then he found the material he used to place the call. To me that’s riding the line, at the least. > [@Marley23](#): > > You’re right that we are taking **Simple Linctus** at his word, but I don’t have a problem doing that in this case. - > [@Marley23](#): > > We might’ve stepped in to discourage that, yes. - > [@Marley23](#): > > I think that may have actually happened. And while we might treat that a little more gently that **Simple Linctus** ’s “investigation,” it’s not a good idea however well intentioned it might be. This seems consistent - although suspending SL seems a bit harsh. To be clear, I do not approve of what SL did, but what’s his current suspension for? Doing what he did is not expressly against the rules - unless it’s based on the ‘do not be a jerk’ rule, in which case, that’s fair enough. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-life-of-posters-private-or-public/650798/69 "2013-02-19T20:50:18Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > I think we all agree that SL shouldn’t have called pC, but should that action be suspendable? Yes. > [@](#): > > If so, why exactly? Because it is creepy, borderline stalking, and being a jerk. > [@](#): > > Is it because calling pC was his implied intent or because he actually went ahead and called pC? Because he called him. IANAMod. All this is IMO only. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-life-of-posters-private-or-public/650798/70 "2013-02-19T20:56:32Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > I think I interpret this a little differently than you (and that’s fine, we can disagree). To be sure, he didn’t give any step by step account, but (and maybe I’m conflating posters, in which case I would be wrong) didn’t he say he followed ACM’s posts and then based off of the username, did some googling? Then he found the material he used to place the call. To me that’s riding the line, at the least. I think he said something like that, yes. But anyone could have done that. Instructions were not necessary. The beginning and the end of the matter is that he made the phone call. > [@](#): > > To be clear, I do not approve of what SL did, but what’s his current suspension for? Doing what he did is not expressly against the rules - unless it’s based on the ‘do not be a jerk’ rule, in which case, that’s fair enough. I think this is definitely “being a jerk.” ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-life-of-posters-private-or-public/650798/71 "2013-02-19T21:00:18Z")
Fair enough. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-life-of-posters-private-or-public/650798/72 "2013-02-19T21:04:11Z")
I have no desire to wade through 13 pages to find what people are talking about. Especially 13 pages of pitting of **pchaos**. Can someone at least narrow down where the incidents in question are occurring so we can find the damn “infraction” under discussion? 'Cause I read the first couple pages and my brain is hurting. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-life-of-posters-private-or-public/650798/73 "2013-02-19T21:05:21Z")
> [@Bob Ducca](#): > > Am I the only person dying to know what the secret password was? I’m hoping something like “Bob’s your uncle” or “Spotted Dick”. My money is on “Dirty Sanchez” with “A Rusty Venture” running a close second. I’d like to note that I once got a call that sure as hell seemed to be from a crazy banned poster that I unwittingly had a part in getting banned. I wasn’t too happy about it to say the least. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-life-of-posters-private-or-public/650798/74 "2013-02-19T21:07:37Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > I have no desire to wade through 13 pages to find what people are talking about. Especially 13 pages of pitting of **pchaos**. Can someone at least narrow down where the incidents in question are occurring so we can find the damn “infraction” under discussion? 'Cause I read the first couple pages and my brain is hurting. I think these cover the essential points — > [@It is implausible that pchaos is a lawyer and he should stop claiming to be one](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/477): > > Holy heck, the idea he was an actual lawyer seemed bizarre. I just phoned up the obvious pchaos you find on the net, sadly there was no reply but I did leave a voicemail with a code-word. If that really is you pchaos, and you are not impersonating someone, please repeat it. If it isn’t you I suppose I or others will call the, back over the next few days. > > If you really are a lawyer I offer you an unreserved, unconditional apology. > [@It is implausible that pchaos is a lawyer and he should stop claiming to be one](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/490): > > I don’t see what’s stupid about it. From melon’s links if this guy is impersonating the real pchaos, then the latter needs to be told. If otoh this guy is in fact the same person, he may in fact like the validation of his real identity. It’s no big deal, it’s just a phone call. If the position is that it really is pchaos but he doesn’t wish to confirm that then he can just ignore the voicemail. I see no downside to anyone other than possibly myself in wasting thirty seconds of my time. > > Want to know the last Internet stranger related phone call I made? Someone had ordered a dominos and I got ahold of the order. I called them up to ask if they really thought it was sane to be exposing their orders to strangers like me. If I hadn’t been me (or 95% of folk as I still reckon most people are decent) then all sorts of scummy shit could have happened to that dude. > > In this case the stakes are far higher (or at least such was my position until BBJ basically showed it was a likely stolen ID but that is hindsight reasoning). > > I have also made a phone call to the UK equivalent of 911 on request based on a thread here (and a pm convo leading from that thread) on scanty yet credible info. I don’t really equate that situation with this one other than to say that in my experience it takes someone to be “the guy who does things” and I have adopted a general policy of that being me. A similar situation is on a mini roundabout, which I will analogise my point to the US situation and say there’s four cars who come to a four way stop and all of them wanna turn left. S one has to go first and I try to be that person (except on a roundabout but I translated the analogy in real time 😉 ) > > This was a relatively substantial post to attempt on an iPad sory for any typos. > [@It is implausible that pchaos is a lawyer and he should stop claiming to be one](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/491): > > (By the way my “guy who does things” philosophy, which I first named now, originates to reading the story of Kitty Genovese in some really cool book about marketing/psychology I forget the name of. I remember a catchphrase was along the lines of “click…whirrr” and given how many people are reading this thread I’m sure someone will know what I’m talking about - the book comes highly recommended) > [@It is implausible that pchaos is a lawyer and he should stop claiming to be one](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/500): > > You could just about claim that I was so smashed I will not remember this tomorrow due to alcohol intoxication, based on my posts here (it is not at all the case but I recognise us substance users are basically like gays in the 1970s) but if I were under the influence of opiates (which I am not, nor alcohol or indeed anything other than caffeine ) this would make no sense. > > I didn’t do a 411 (is that the right term?) and call a home phone number- I obtained a work number alleged to be his by making an incredibly obvious google from melon’s links, and left a message. > > Not that I have a massive objection to anyone phoning me. Conincidentally, and I ain’t making this up, I bought a new mobile phone today. I don’t mind posting the number of it up here for a week as an experiment if you’re game… > [@It is implausible that pchaos is a lawyer and he should stop claiming to be one](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/502): > > I will just put it down to value differences in the end. I can entirely understand that no one should call a personal number. I also, indicentally, don’t think anyone should be outing irl identies (alleged or otherwise) of fellow sdmb posters, and I’m amazed you’ve allowed that and no one has complained. But if that’s to be done like it was by mr melon I see no real harm in making contact in the work sphere of people who claim to be doing said work, especially when there’s a direct line… > [@It is implausible that pchaos is a lawyer and he should stop claiming to be one](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/512): > > p.s. are phone calls from strangers some seriously taboo thing in the US or something. That would seem very strange to me, even if I didn’t know anything about the US (and I know a lot about the US) given how many threads there are in this precise subforum about telemarketers and peopel who call you up at suppertime to get you to do political polls and suchlike. In other words, what’s the deal about phone calls? It’s just a ringing noise and someone talking to you. > > I **do** understand the concern about working out who pchaos is (or allegedly is). I would never even think to do that kind of thing frankly. But when other posters have done and leave it in other posts, and as you can see the info is left here for everyone who is interested, what am I supposed to do? Ignore it? ---
**Author:** ![R3d\_Anonymous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/aeb1de/32.png) [@R3d\_Anonymous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/R3d_Anonymous)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-life-of-posters-private-or-public/650798/75 "2013-02-19T21:07:48Z")
So was the call real? Did **Simple Linctus** legitimately call **pchaos**? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-life-of-posters-private-or-public/650798/76 "2013-02-19T21:08:17Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > I have no desire to wade through 13 pages to find what people are talking about. Especially 13 pages of pitting of **pchaos**. Can someone at least narrow down where the incidents in question are occurring so we can find the damn “infraction” under discussion? 'Cause I read the first couple pages and my brain is hurting. The link in the OP skips to the page in question. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-life-of-posters-private-or-public/650798/77 "2013-02-19T21:16:19Z")
By the way, the Registration Agreement has something to say about this: > [@SDMB registration agreement as of 12/21/2014](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-registration-agreement-as-of-12-21-2014/620957/1): > > 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. You agree not to post material that in our opinion encourages activity that is illegal in the U.S. We reserve the right to revoke the posting privileges of persons misrepresenting themselves on the SDMB. The “invasive of a person’s privacy” bit is relevant to the thread topic- not specifically to the phone call question (that should be common sense) but to the broader issue of posting information about someone else. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-life-of-posters-private-or-public/650798/78 "2013-02-19T21:18:13Z")
> [@Anonymous User](#): > > So was the call real? Did **Simple Linctus** legitimately call **pchaos**? Why are you asking us? **Simple Linctus** claimed he made the call and he can’t post about it, and it would be stupid of **pchaos** to talk about it. I see not reason not to take **Simple Linctus** at his word. ---
**Author:** ![akennett](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee59a6/32.png) [@akennett](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/akennett)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-life-of-posters-private-or-public/650798/79 "2013-02-19T21:20:13Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I think this is definitely “being a jerk.” But it’s not “being a jerk” on the boards. Are you going to suspend me because I was a jerk on the road today by laying on the horn and flipping off a driver who cut me off in what, in hindsight, could have just been a simple error on his part? What if that driver happens to be another Doper? ---
**Author:** ![R3d\_Anonymous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/aeb1de/32.png) [@R3d\_Anonymous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/R3d_Anonymous)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-life-of-posters-private-or-public/650798/80 "2013-02-19T21:24:23Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > By the way, the Registration Agreement has something to say about this: > > [QUOTE=Ed Zotti] > 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. You agree not to post material that in our opinion encourages activity that is illegal in the U.S. We reserve the right to revoke the posting privileges of persons misrepresenting themselves on the SDMB. The “invasive of a person’s privacy” bit is relevant to the thread topic- not specifically to the phone call question (that should be common sense) but to the broader issue of posting information about someone else. [/QUOTE] By that logic, isn’t what **AClockworkMelon** did, out of line? Because he “used the SDMB to post material” that was “invasive of a person’s privacy”. The posts of **AClockworkMelon** revealed **pchaos’s** real name which made it possible for **Simple Linctus** to call **pchaos**. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-life-of-posters-private-or-public/650798.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-real-life-of-posters-private-or-public/650798.md?page=5)