case studies

Kinetic IV · Post by **Kinetic IV** » Wed May 17, 2006 8:45 pm

Commerce:
http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... 3b5#235137

Kinetic IV · Post by **Kinetic IV** » Mon May 22, 2006 9:11 pm

I would like to make a formal request to have a post removed from this thread.
http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... 404#236404

In particular I am referring to a post by Dustbuddy, timestamped at 10:40 pm on May 22nd.

The reason I'm asking for this is the post contains personal information that IMHO has no business being displayed in a public forum like the eplaya. It doesn't matter IMHO who the participants are, nobody should have links to maps and other info posted like that and used as a weapon in an online war. The eplaya in the past has disapproved of such conduct and so I'm asking for the admins to consider this request. I didn't use a PM because I'd like to see some feedback on this. Maybe I'm off base...but I just think this is wrong. Again...my only intent is to remove the personal info...and not to censor the opinions of those involved beyond that one aspect.

Thanks in advance for considering my request.

Dustbuddy · Post by **Dustbuddy** » Mon May 22, 2006 9:58 pm

Kinetic IV wrote:I would like to make a formal request to have a post removed from this thread.
http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... 404#236404

In particular I am referring to a post by Dustbuddy, timestamped at 10:40 pm on May 22nd.

The reason I'm asking for this is the post contains personal information that IMHO has no business being displayed in a public forum like the eplaya.

Technically, it doesn't. It contains nothing more than a link to a Usenet post and Rockdad's real life name (***) and hometown (***). Repeating a response already posted to Kinetic's latest attempt to trump up a charge, as it is applicable to this absurd complaint:

___________________________________________________

This is an exercise in futility, Kinetic. The "personal information" you refer to was posted to Googlegroups, so the mods on ePlaya are quite incapable of removing it. Nor can they keep the Burning Man community from having access to a link to that post, because I made sure to post a copy to Travel to Burning Man, where AntiM, Spectabillis et al. have no authority. For good measure, I've already taken to contacting a number of ePlaya's very angry and public critics, asking if I could post to their forums if my posts are censored on ePlaya. You might be surprised at how many of those critics there are, and some of their pages are doing very well in the search engine rankings. The responses I've been getting have been supportive.

Every piece of information I posted was publicly available, obtained through well known sources available for use by the general public, so regardless of what kind of trouble Rockdad / ***, *** manages to foolishly get himself into, there won't even be so much as a cause for civil action much less criminal prosecution. Public information is public and this has been tested out in the courts, so deal with it. Get as overwrought as you want, and I'm sure you will, but you can't change the fact that your complaint is without legal merit.

Kinetic IV · Post by **Kinetic IV** » Mon May 22, 2006 10:05 pm

I'm not trumping anything. I simply feel it's wrong, I'm entitled to my opinion, and again if the tables were turned and it was your info, SB's, heck even Larry Harvey's info I'd object.

You're going to do what you want...and as I said elsewhere just because you can doesn't mean you should. I've opened my mouth plenty of times on here and put my foot in it...I may be doing that again. But at least I can go to sleep tonight knowing at least in one forum I tried to do something to uphold a person's right to privacy...even a small shred of it.

Dustbuddy · Post by **Dustbuddy** » Mon May 22, 2006 10:17 pm

Kinetic IV wrote: But at least I can go to sleep tonight knowing at least in one forum I tried to do something to uphold a person's right to privacy...

You go to bed having fought to protect a slanderer from the legal consequences of his slander, by pretending that he is somehow going to be put into mortal physical danger. You've pushed the envelope on plausibility in order to find another opportunity to be self-righteous at the expense of somebody who rightly objects to having been screwed over in public, over something so absurd that were one writing fiction, one couldn't include such an incident as a plot twist because it would be too out there for the reader to believe.

You're the worst kind of scum, Kinetic - the self-righteous kind.

Kinetic IV · Post by **Kinetic IV** » Mon May 22, 2006 10:21 pm

Again...my point was overlooked. If Rockdad posted your info I'd be doing the so called self righteous howling too. I make no apologies for standing up for what I think is right even if it pisses people off. It's better to be hated for what I am than liked for being someone I'm not.

And with that I'm cluttering up Case Studies so I'll shut up, let you have your rebuttal and allow you to sling some more mud on me and hopefully that will make you happy.

Edit: Crossposting:
http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... 445#236445
http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... ht=#236444

Post by **AntiM** » Tue May 23, 2006 3:14 am

I removed the posts and have edited out Rockdad's info on other posts. I did this per section 7 of the terms of service.

Content Posted on the Site.

The following is a partial list of the kind of Content that is illegal or prohibited on the Eplaya. Burning Man reserves the right to investigate and take appropriate legal action in its sole discretion against anyone who violates this provision, including without limitation, removing the offending post from the Service and terminating the membership of such violators, in connection with all available civil, criminal, and injunctive remedies. You agree not to use the Service to:

post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

...

harasses or advocates harassment of another person;

Kinetic IV · Post by **Kinetic IV** » Wed May 24, 2006 11:23 am

Commerce?

http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... 739#236739

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Wed May 24, 2006 12:43 pm

i cant remember what the latest rulings are, but to be perfectly honest i no longer act on my opinion in these matters. its up to everyone else, make this your board and your community as far as i am concerned.

so to play devils advocate - what are Regionals and Events if not something that burningman attendees would be interested in?

Kinetic IV · Post by **Kinetic IV** » Wed May 24, 2006 12:52 pm

I put a question mark in my earlier post because I wasn't absolutely certain it qualifies as commerce. But the event does allow vending which is not something I've seen associated with the regionals I've attended. It looked questionable enough to warrant posting.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Wed May 24, 2006 1:09 pm

I didn't exactly like the slick presentation and line up of events. It smacked of commercial type speech to me, too. And apparently blyslv. I don't know if that's enough, but I'm in favor of cutting off a few non-commerce peeps in order to make sure the commerce types don't creep in.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Wed May 24, 2006 1:16 pm

Poking around on their sites I see a lot of graphics that look like the rave postcards that litter the San Francisco streets. Off-putting. However, this might be a case of "friendly" sorry you violated our rules de-posting, rather than boot them to hell commercial sock devil de-posting. De-posting is my vote in either case.

Post by **AntiM** » Wed May 24, 2006 2:21 pm

I vote commerce because there is no fund-raising I can see. That's my standard, fund raising for camps or art for burners.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Wed May 24, 2006 2:28 pm

Have we reached a quorum yet? Or are we FUBARed until Emily's back?

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Wed May 24, 2006 3:38 pm

nope, me or antiM can delete it.

Dustbuddy · Post by **Dustbuddy** » Wed May 24, 2006 5:08 pm

AntiM wrote:I removed the posts and have edited out Rockdad's info on other posts. I did this per section 7 of the terms of service.

You agree not to use the Service to:

post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

...

harasses or advocates harassment of another person;

This hardly qualifies, and I think that you know that AntiM. This is you, like Spectabillis, pursuing your own personal agenda, and trying to make corrupt politics look clean through an absurd interpretation of the rules. "Make a career out of committing libel, and expect that the process servers will be pointed in the direction of your door" isn't harassment, and it isn't a threat. It's common sense.

Not that such a thing seems to be in fashion around here.

The information in question was posted to Usenet, not ePlaya, so it's anybody's guess what you thought your abuse of a moderator's discretion would accomplish, but successfully shielding Rockdad's anonymity will not be it. A Googlegroups search under "Rockdad" will turn up that post, and most other searches under his name will turn up the Travel to Burning Man forum very high in the listings. Once one is there, not finding the link to my Usenet post reprinting that publicly available information would take some doing.

We doubt that Proboards would respond positively to the meritless complaint that you will no doubt try to lodge, but if so, keep in mind the fact that we had the foresight to place that forum on a number of rings, and if need be, those ring memberships can be realigned to a new position, which the search engines will then quickly find. You'd also be handing us another chapter in an already outrageous story, which we would be very happy to share with the anti-censorship community. I understand that ePlaya's reputation in that area is already pretty shaky, and an attempt to abuse the system in order to shield a well connected community member from the legal consequences of his actions isn't going to fit in very well with that "Peace and Love" image that Burning Man likes to cultivate for itself.

In summary, then, if you want to play, we can go there, but I don't think that you're going to like the game.

Kinetic IV · Post by **Kinetic IV** » Wed May 24, 2006 6:08 pm

Unsolicited comment...

AntiM was picked as a moderator due to her tendencies not to get involved in flame fests and to be fair and impartial. To make a claim that she has an agenda is absurd.

Perhaps someone needs to go back and read her post. She clearly spelled out what part of the TOS gave her the authority to act and she made the call, that should be the end of it. If you don't like it you can always stick around the board, quit stirring up stuff and eventually petition to be a moderator yourself.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Wed May 24, 2006 6:23 pm

Dustbuddy wrote:This hardly qualifies, and I think that you know that AntiM. This is you, like Spectabillis, pursuing your own personal agenda, and trying to make corrupt politics look clean through an absurd interpretation of the rules...In summary, then, if you want to play, we can go there, but I don't think that you're going to like the game.

Play what game, exactly? And I mean that question in all seriousness.

This place has been more than accommodating to your behavior, you have made enough baseless accusations and have proven dishonest on more than one occasion. AntiM has my complete support, the support of the organization that runs this board, and the support of the people who make this board a community. You have successfully alienated yourself and refuse to accept any involvement and accountability.

You have been given more than adequate opportunity to both explain and own up to things. You will not find me, AntiM, Emily, Spanky... anyone willing to get into another discussion over this.

Ranger Genius · Post by **Ranger Genius** » Wed May 24, 2006 7:36 pm

post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

(My emphasis).

Will someone please get dustbuddy a girlfriend, or a hobby, or something? He clearly has too much time and too little rational thought available to him. Add another tally in favor of AntiM's impartiality and even-handedness. Posting someone's personal information, even if it is something that is publicly researchable, is still invasive and threatening, which was the clearly the intent of the post, irrespective of any doublespeak or bullshit rationalizations you can make for it.

Rockdad · Post by **Rockdad** » Wed May 24, 2006 8:01 pm

Illinois Cyberstalking law from Illinois state police

720 ILCS 5/12-7.5
Sec. 12-7.5. Cyberstalking.

1. A person commits cyberstalking when he or she, knowingly and without lawful justification, on at least 2 separate occasions, harasses another person through the use of electronic communication and:
1. at any time transmits a threat of immediate or future bodily harm, sexual assault, confinement, or restraint and the threat is directed towards that person or a family member of that person, or
2. places that person or a family member of that person in reasonable apprehension of immediate or future bodily harm, sexual assault, confinement, or restraint.
2. As used in this Section:
"Harass" means to engage in a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that alarms, torments, or terrorizes that person.
"Electronic communication" means any transfer of signs, signals, writings, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electronmagnetic, photoelectric, or photo-optical system.
"Electronic communication" includes transmissions by a computer through the Internet to another computer.
3. Sentence. Cyberstalking is a Class 4 felony. A second or subsequent conviction for cyberstalking is a Class 3 felony.

720 ILCS 135/0.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Wed May 24, 2006 8:01 pm

For the record: I did post dustbuddy/observer/traveller's hometown. I only did so to verify his request for sock usage clarification, but without any address or name. I usually dont disclose sock usage to respect peoples privacy.

Post by **AntiM** » Wed May 24, 2006 9:24 pm

The information in question was posted to Usenet, not ePlaya, so it's anybody's guess what you thought your abuse of a moderator's discretion would accomplish, but successfully shielding Rockdad's anonymity will not be it.

Hey, you're right about something. I don't have anything to do with usenet, don't care, don't give a rat's ass, and DUH I know anyone can trace almost every one of us if they care to do so. eplaya has developed a community standard of not posting someone else's personal information here. You did. People complained. The information was removed. I, as a human, interpreted the TOS. No hidden agenda, no front for rockdad, no peace and love BS, no under the table pay-off, no games. That's it. Don't make this something it is not, personal agendas against you? Hardly.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Wed May 24, 2006 10:07 pm

rockdad, i dont think its all that serious as to think someone is going to call the netcops. that comes off as overly dramatic and its not helping.

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Thu May 25, 2006 5:00 am

Mr. ***** should be contacted at

Who the hell is Mr. *****?

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Thu May 25, 2006 8:36 am

well... on to much better things since this personal shit is just a time suck with no constructive contributions of community, in fact is just makes most walk away from this board.

theCryptofishist wrote:Have we reached a quorum yet? Or are we FUBARed until Emily's back?

i didnt do anything because i didnt think there was enough feedback. i mean yes there was you, blyslv, k and i really appreciate the comments - but thats it. a horrible way to tell if thats what people want or what to do.

in those cases i dont do anything and just let it sit there like a floater someone leaves in the bowl. the people who feel strongly enough to actually say something about it can still do so in the topic in question so they still have thier ability to influence things. hopefully the person who posted it will reply, or at least read it and understand... but i doubt it.

Kinetic IV · Post by **Kinetic IV** » Mon May 29, 2006 3:46 pm

Commerce:
http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... 581#238581

Kinetic IV · Post by **Kinetic IV** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:45 am

Commerce / p0rn:
http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... 746#239746
(definitely NOT a work safe link, yikes!)

ThePikey · Post by **ThePikey** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:17 pm

Someone PLEASE tell me this is just an elaborate satire. *Closes eyes and prays silently*

http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic.php?t=13061

Post by **AntiM** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:37 am

I'm taking it as such. I like the tailor-made costumes schtick. What, no tanning beds and lipo and botox so one looks faboo?

capjbadger · Post by **capjbadger** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:22 am

AntiM wrote:I'm taking it as such. I like the tailor-made costumes schtick. What, no tanning beds and lipo and botox so one looks faboo?

As am I. Quotes like "...to eliminate any work on your part and maximize your partying and gawking time." is just too much a poke at spectators to not be a joke. Well done Lazy!

Its nice to see some "high-brow" humor here for once rather than the usual kindergarten mudslinging that typicaly goes on.