From what has been said before on other threads, I think you’re wrong about this. How did she get hold of his real name?
I think she did nothing wrong, and I think that people who accuse me of asskissing and giving blowjobs to the administrators for thinking that are being astonishingly insufferable assholes.
Daniel
I am not one of the latter. (Well I might be an astonishingly insufferable asshole, but for other reasons). Do really think that when she signed her name and added “for the Straight Dope” at LJ that that was OK?
FYI, I am on record as welcoming her back.
jester, point taken.
From what I understand, it was his e-mail address (firstname.lastname@whatever.com). This was in his public profile.
And once again, I think that people that take SDMB off this board and onto LJ, where they can hide under an anonymous username, are the worst sort of pigfucking cowards.
You’ve seen the comments made here- think anyone’s pulling any punches? The only reason to take it off board is to be able to snipe without people knowing exactly what sort of assholes you are.
Say what you will about Tuba- she posted as herself in LJ, and has to deal with the opinions of everyone here in the wake of her actions. If you can’t do the same, you need to shut the fuck up.
For your information, I do NOT post on LJ - in fact I didn’t know it existed until this blew up. So STFU yourself, if you’re going to come here and make false accusations about me based on zero information.
It was more of a general comment based on the drama that went on last night.
Sorry if you took it as a personal attack. I should have probably made a separate post on it.
If it was a sin, it was a tiny, tiny sin. Teenissimo. Eeny weeny. Miniscule. Unimportant.
And I don’t mind that people disagree with me on this. What I mind is that so many people are being such raging shits about it. (Not everyone who thinks she did ill is being a jerk–Guin, catsix, and others are disagreeing civilly, and I thank them for that).
Daniel
Stonebow’s right, at least that’s how it has been said. His publicly available email addy was easily translatable into his name, his location was mentioned multiple times, so a search on Megans list was simple.
The rightness or wrongness of her action should be evaluated independantly of her position at the SDMB. If it was me who got the letter accusing inappropriate child contact (it WAS sent to non-admins as well) and I went on LJ and posted the Megans Law entry, would I have been in the wrong?
If you think I would have been wrong do post it, that’s fine, and a perfectly valid opinion. You can then say that Tuba was wrong to post it, and you think this reflects poorly on her, and maybe someone who makes these mistakes shouldn’t be an admin.
However, I get the impression that many here feel that she abused her admin authority, and violated the SDMB privacy policy by posting it. I don’t think that’s a valid argument.
She only knew about the accusation because of her position AFAIK.
If she wasn’t an admin she wouldn’t have known that SM was being accused of anything.
She accused him of the same thing on LJ using a SD sig.
Does the fact that scotticher got the same (or similar note) make any difference? I believe she mentioned that in one of these threads…
That would work except for one thing-the fact that she revealed someone had accused the banned poster of harassment via e-mail. That was NOT public information.
Besides, even if it was available on the net, does that mean the admins can go to google, find our names and addresses and post them on LJ, since most of us are available in the phonebook?
She also violated Megan’s Law-which says this information is NOT to be used to harass people.
But the admins regularly give their reasons for banning someone; the fact that she explained one of the reasons for banning doesn’t bother me.
If they figure this out using public information, then yes, they sure can. That wouldn’t be a good idea, but they sure can. That’s not, however, what happened.
More than one attorney* has opined that this is an inaccurate interpretation of Megan’s Law. I like ya, Guin, but I don’t think your interpretation of the law is better than that of people trained in interpreting the law, and I think you should drop this point as a nonstarter.
Daniel
- I’m pretty sure minty green and Bricker have both made this interpretation; please correct me if I’m wrong, guys! Furthermore, the board’s own attorneys have almost certainly made this interpretation, given the outcome of the incident.
Right, that’s a fireable offense at most private organizations. Even if you’re not at work, the company still retains the right to axe your position if they don’t feel your represenation of the company in your off-hours is permissible.
Similarly, the company has the right not to axe your position in that circumstance. I don’t think anyone’s saying she couldn’t have been banned, that the law or some contract would prevent it.
Daniel
Just because it isn’t public does not mean it falls under the SDMB privacy policy. The admins are, IMHO, free to do whatever they want with google and LJ. My privacy policy agreement with them is there so that I can feel comfortable with giving them private information, not to ensure my eternal anonymity.
I give them a credit card and address, I trust that they will not access the information I gave them and distribute that information inappropriately. Information that is publicly available or that is not given to them by me is fair game.
You have to laugh though. If she had simply admitted, “My behaviour indicates that I should not be an admin, so I will just become an ordinary Doper” this whole thing would be over. And it would have served us well.
But God forbid that she should become “one of us”, the SDMB has no attractions without priviliges so fuck the benefit of the majority just do what you like. Just ask yourself if you had to choose between what was best for you and what was best for the SDMB (giving up some bullshit rights to butt in to threads) which would you choose. If you pick your self-aggrandizement look for the “I’m Back” thread.
Maybe it does but again AFAIK the reason why TD was informed was because she was an admin and the incident was being reported to her.
Anyway we’re well into the legal area that we were asked not to go to and although I’ll be leaving soon I still realise that there are rules that I don’t want to break just for shits and giggles.
I’ll stop now.
So why didn’t she reveal that in the original “So and So is BANNED” thread? If it what she posted wasn’t priviledged info, then why did she have to go to LJ-why not just spill it here?
If this is the case, and you two (Cheese and Left) are correct, then why has the administration
- Admitted they fucked up and apologized;
- Made changes to their written policy to ensure no more fuck-ups occur.
Except for the fact that she stated that the privacy policies of the SD prohibited her from giving the reason behind the banning, but she wasn’t under such a ban on LJ. And then added the Megan’s Law link to “support” her claims. And signed her “official” admin. signiture.
Of course that may still not bother you. But it bothers some of us. Quite a bit.
It seems a lot of people don’t seem to give a fuck that she violated someone’s privacy since he is who is/was/whatever. The people, myself included, who think that Tuba should have been removed immediately (and forever) from her Admin position don’t care about the mitigating circumstances that supposedly make what Tuba did A-Ok. To us, a violation is a violation is a violation, and should be treated as such. What is also ignored is the fact that she also violated the alleged victim’s privacy as well by posting that there was a complaint against Stage Manager.
And similarly, customers of said company have the right to take their business elsewhere and state exactly why they are doing so.
For example, say your bank’s manager commited a violation of another customer’s privacy outside of the bank. Gave out personal financial information in a very public way. Then say that the manager’s only punishment was a 30-day suspension, and the owners of the bank basically said it’s no big deal and why are all these other customers so upset about it. Would you feel comfortable banking there after the suspension was lifted?