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.
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?
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.
You’re right that we are taking Simple Linctus at his word, but I don’t have a problem doing that in this case.
We might’ve stepped in to discourage that, yes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
By the way, the Registration Agreement has something to say about this:
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.
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.
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?
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.