So I tried searching for "We Play Civ"...

[KrazyHorse]

Asher, Kuci, Lori, Felch, TCO, loinburger, Drake, Bugs, a couple of others I'm probably missing.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, that was my fault. I'm sorry for using you as an example Ben. Was the first thing that popped into my head, I didn't mean to imply you would do that. I apologise.

And now it really is time to get my train.

Thank you.

[Ben Kenobi]

I said I would file a complaint against you to the BC Human Rights Tribunal/Commission for your hate speech on here.

I still haven't received anything from them btw.

[DaShi]

Ok, let me get this clear. sn00py is Frostyboy?

[Lorizael]

Your distinctions are neither intellectually nor morally compelling.

They're not meant to be morally compelling because I'm not making a moral argument. On the basis of objective rightness or wrongness, I don't believe any of us are obligated to perform any action.

From an intellectual standpoint, however, I can take into account what society generally views to be right and wrong.

When it comes to hypothetical actions that may lead to harm, we generally don't take action because doing so infringes upon the rights of people. FrostyBoy has a right to muse about whether or not he should marry for money, and I don't believe there is a significant imperative to jeopardize that right by taking action against him.

Imminent harm normally does create an obligation to act because you are no longer dealing with a hypothetical but an actual. When actual harm is in the process of being inflicted upon a person, the imperative to prevent that wrong outweighs the rights of an individual, because that individual is violating another's rights.

We also generally draw a distinction between physical harm and emotional harm. Physical harm is almost always regarded as being universally bad, except in the instance where there is consent. Couples can consent to BDSM and football players can consent to being tackled, for example.

Emotional harm, however, is not as strictly regulated. Society seems to be okay with people getting their feelings hurt unless the person hurting the victim's feelings is persistent and malicious.

Based on all that, I think it's perfectly reasonable for members of Apolyton to act to prevent imminent physical harm to another person, but less reasonable to prevent other kinds of harm. Doing so has the potential to infringe upon others' rights and risk litigation.

[KrazyHorse]

a) You're comparing legal harm on one side to generalized harm (e.g. the "right to anonymity" on the other). I have no idea why you think this should be your standard (i.e. I am only justified in taking actions which might cause some harm to somebody, even if there is no law against this harm, if there is an imminent danger of legal harm). To put it more concretely, if society is okay with people getting their feelings hurt then it should be okay with me calling up snoopy's girlfriend and hurting his feelings by giving her the link to the relevant thread.

b) There is absolutely no risk to litigation (at least none which would get past a judge) to determining snoopy's identity via legal means and truthfully reporting to his girlfriend what he said

I'm not contemplating breaking the law, Lori. I have no idea where you think the law comes in. I am contemplating remedying a wrong which is legal and involves no physical harm via legal actions of my own which involve no physical harm.

[notyoueither]

Getting married under pretense is illegal?

Edit: Sorry, I misread.

[KrazyHorse]

I didn't mean to say that it was, but I can see where I was unclear.

In the last paragraph, "wrong which is legal" means an action which is legal, but which is wrong.

[notyoueither]

Cross edited you.

[Kuciwalker]

Anyway the point is, people should be able to discuss personal issues here, get advice or whatever (no matter how dumb getting advice from Poly posters might be) without a threat hanging over them that if they talk about something KrazyHorse judges to morally wrong he'll go off and tell everyone they know about it.

As a counter example, how would you react if Ben decided Asher's work had a right to know his sexuality and threatened to tell them?

The situation is no different.

QFT.

[KrazyHorse]

No.

[Lorizael]

To put it more concretely, if society is okay with people getting their feelings hurt then it should be okay with me calling up snoopy's girlfriend and hurting his feelings by giving her the link to the relevant thread.

Society would be "okay" with this to the extent that some would support your action and others would condemn it. It's a subjective determination that's very difficult to quantify without a rigid foundation of rights and rules.

b) There is absolutely no risk to litigation (at least none which would get past a judge) to determining snoopy's identity via legal means and truthfully reporting to his girlfriend what he said

It could be considered stalking, harassment, or invasion of privacy. I doubt it would get very far in court either, but I'd rather not take the risk.

Further, Apolyton is not society at large. We exist as a community of gamers, and I believe that part of my responsibility as a moderator is to maintain that sense of community. I don't believe allowing one poster to track down and tell on another poster fosters that sense.

[rah]

Or since it's obvious that quite a few people post from work, how about if someone thought it was necessary to research and inform the bosses of those that posted here that their employees weren't working 100% of the time.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This thread is boring the **** out of me. Can't y'all talk about something interesting?

[Lorizael]

Yup. We're all committing theft. Go get 'em, KH.