Itâs fine to link to information which is already easily publicly available. (I.e. donât link to a Facebook post from seven years ago that they accidentally set to be public, but itâs okay to link to a very public Twitter thread.)
We may ask you to rot13 encrypt names so that your comment is not discoverable via search engine while still being useful to people reading this post
Donât share addresses, contact info, or other information that could be used to harass someone, and donât incite harassment
Note: this is a statement about what violates Forum norms, not what is ethical. There might be compelling reasons not to post this even if it doesnât technically violate our rules.
Community health request, different from the moderation decision on whether this is allowed: The person whose Twitter thread has indicated elsewhere that she doesnât think the accused should be identified, because that could reveal information about other women in the piece. The community health team is requesting that people not link to her Twitter thread.
If people are going to be allowed to use names in a post or comment pertaining to someoneâs private life, there should be at least a norm/ârule of rot13â˛ing those names upfront rather than having them up in cleartext unless and until a mod notices it.
Good thought, I very much prefer norms that donât require moderators to notice things.
Itâs hard to make a âbright lineâ rule here though. Maybe something like:
If you are sharing information about a specific individual which you believe they would not want associated with them, consider rot13ing the information so itâs not discoverable via search engine
?
(This is offhand and coming just from me, I suspect other moderators might have different opinions.)
Maybe the bright line rule is that if another Forum user asks you to rot13 a name in a discussion that even arguably implicates the principle of respect for the named personâs private life, you are expected to do so and can appeal to the mods if you think that request was inappropriate.
I think itâs hard to avoid a unilateralist problem either way on this one until mods can weigh in. Since I think the harm of erroneous rot13 is low, I would prefer to give a temporary veto to a single user who thinks rot13 is necessary than allowing a single user to decide that cleartext is appropriate.
I expect there would be few if any unreasonable rot13 requests, and thus very few appeals.
Mod here.
Itâs fine to link to information which is already easily publicly available. (I.e. donât link to a Facebook post from seven years ago that they accidentally set to be public, but itâs okay to link to a very public Twitter thread.)
We may ask you to rot13 encrypt names so that your comment is not discoverable via search engine while still being useful to people reading this post
Donât share addresses, contact info, or other information that could be used to harass someone, and donât incite harassment
See more on our norms here.
Note: this is a statement about what violates Forum norms, not what is ethical. There might be compelling reasons not to post this even if it doesnât technically violate our rules.
Community health request, different from the moderation decision on whether this is allowed:
The person whose Twitter thread has indicated elsewhere that she doesnât think the accused should be identified, because that could reveal information about other women in the piece. The community health team is requesting that people not link to her Twitter thread.
If people are going to be allowed to use names in a post or comment pertaining to someoneâs private life, there should be at least a norm/ârule of rot13â˛ing those names upfront rather than having them up in cleartext unless and until a mod notices it.
Good thought, I very much prefer norms that donât require moderators to notice things.
Itâs hard to make a âbright lineâ rule here though. Maybe something like:
?
(This is offhand and coming just from me, I suspect other moderators might have different opinions.)
Maybe the bright line rule is that if another Forum user asks you to rot13 a name in a discussion that even arguably implicates the principle of respect for the named personâs private life, you are expected to do so and can appeal to the mods if you think that request was inappropriate.
I think itâs hard to avoid a unilateralist problem either way on this one until mods can weigh in. Since I think the harm of erroneous rot13 is low, I would prefer to give a temporary veto to a single user who thinks rot13 is necessary than allowing a single user to decide that cleartext is appropriate.
I expect there would be few if any unreasonable rot13 requests, and thus very few appeals.