Conquer Club

I am going to report myself on this matter. I apparently crossed the line with using information about another user in a way that wasnt appropriate.

As per the Forum Guidelines, it states under 'flaming specifics':

Using a person's real information, picture, address, blog or anything else "personal" is NOT ok, and is Personal Information Abuse.

The reason I am coming forward with this is because of the forum abuse taking place in many cases. I should be held accountable and be responsible for my actions in this case.

I would also like to argue in defense of myself, there is a lot of "leniency" under this rule too.

Yes, we are liberal on coarse language, but this does not mean cyber-bullying or abusive bigotry is acceptable anywhere. You will be removed from the community for cyber-bullying or abusive bigotry.

I dont understand why so many people get away with this when it is in black and white, plain as day. There are children and adults who frequent this site, and people are verbally abusive in many forms. I feel I shouldnt get away with it, and neither should they.

This is the rule you claim you violated:

Don't ever post personal information of other users. Anywhere. Ever. Even if they already posted it somewhere else. This includes posting personal information about a CC user on another site, you will be held accountable here.

A career that the user himself constantly, publicly, refers to and has on his wall in the spot that CC has assigned for OCCUPATION is hardly personal information or a personal information violation. CC promotes sharing of occupation by having a freaking spot for it to be posted.

I agree....but the rule says "Don't ever post personal information of other users. Anywhere. Ever. Even if they already posted it somewhere else"....and that would include the personal profile page.

jackal31 wrote:I agree....but the rule says "Don't ever post personal information of other users. Anywhere. Ever. Even if they already posted it somewhere else"....and that would include the personal profile page.

Well his career that is repeatedly referred to by him and is encouraged by CC to be wall displayed and is by woodruffs choice is not personal information.

A big thumbs up to you for trying to do the "right" thing but this will be closed.

jackal31 wrote:I am going to report myself on this matter. I apparently crossed the line with using information about another user in a way that wasnt appropriate.

As per the Forum Guidelines, it states under 'flaming specifics':

Using a person's real information, picture, address, blog or anything else "personal" is NOT ok, and is Personal Information Abuse.

The reason I am coming forward with this is because of the forum abuse taking place in many cases. I should be held accountable and be responsible for my actions in this case.

I would also like to argue in defense of myself, there is a lot of "leniency" under this rule too.

Yes, we are liberal on coarse language, but this does not mean cyber-bullying or abusive bigotry is acceptable anywhere. You will be removed from the community for cyber-bullying or abusive bigotry.

I dont understand why so many people get away with this when it is in black and white, plain as day. There are children and adults who frequent this site, and people are verbally abusive in many forms. I feel I shouldnt get away with it, and neither should they.

On the presumption this is referring to the C&A thread against me, I've already stated there that I have no problem with references to the fact that I am a teacher. As jefjef says, I talk about it all of the time.

I will say though that I don't think it's particularly relevant to the case, since that thread against me is for what I have posted in these fora and not what I do outside of these fora. So as to the usefulness of referencing it...it doesn't seem useful or valuable information.

I do, however, have serious problems with how that information has been used to attack my capabilities in my job within that thread.

jefjef wrote:

jackal31 wrote:I agree....but the rule says "Don't ever post personal information of other users. Anywhere. Ever. Even if they already posted it somewhere else"....and that would include the personal profile page.

Well his career that is repeatedly referred to by him and is encouraged by CC to be wall displayed and is by woodruffs choice is not personal information.

That doesn't actually make sense, jefjef. It's still personal information...it's simply personal information that I have disclosed voluntarily.

jackal, what are you hoping to gain by this report? Some sort of moral superiority, based on the fact that you'll be a teacher? Reporting yourself should be considered spurious, and you should get a warning, or whatever level of punishment you're on.

Serbia wrote:jackal, what are you hoping to gain by this report? Some sort of moral superiority, based on the fact that you'll be a teacher? Reporting yourself should be considered spurious, and you should get a warning, or whatever level of punishment you're on.

Well, you lead by example. I broke the rules and now realize it. I dont mind talking about ones profession, but in a public forum, I can see how it can get out of control. I had a hand in the mess, now I should have to take part of the penalty too.

What I might gain from this, is consistency from CC. I made an infraction, I expect that all infractions to be policed the right way. The rules are written for a reason, lets follow them.

oh please

As a poster who discussed what the nature of posts here may reflect about someone's real character and abilities to do a job that requires instruction on real character...

when a poster posts information about a career, then uses the nature of a career position being sacred to justify flaming attacks on anyone who disagrees or mildly teases, then the poster is using the nature of the career to justify any unwarranted behavior. When that poster did that, that poster "invited" others to comment on what actions here say about character in general, and when the nature of the career requires a better character than is displayed, that should be within someone's rights to point out.

In plainer English:

If you don't want aspersions on career character, don't do things here that cause people to doubt the very career character you claim is sacred; and certainly don't use that career-character-was-violated excuse to justify behavior that is outside the character required for the career. Because when you do that, you do open up the field to discuss whether there's any career character to protect.

As an example, if I were a parent and granted my school "bragging rights" I would not expect those "bragging rights" to extend to some educator within the school bragging on a site where he also uses extremely abusive language in front of minors; especially since it's quite possible some of those minors on the site could be my child that this person is supposed to be showing a good example to. If I were aware an educator had done that, I might bring a formal, legal complaint to the school or school board.

I wouldn't expect to find that someone pointing that out would be subjected to graphic, nasty language in front of more minors; and certainly wouldn't agree that pointing that out "justifies" the original graphic, nasty language.

Maybe that's just my perspective, though. We'll see...

Woodruff wrote:

jefjef wrote:

jackal31 wrote:I agree....but the rule says "Don't ever post personal information of other users. Anywhere. Ever. Even if they already posted it somewhere else"....and that would include the personal profile page.

Well his career that is repeatedly referred to by him and is encouraged by CC to be wall displayed and is by woodruffs choice is not personal information.

That doesn't actually make sense, jefjef. It's still personal information...it's simply personal information that I have disclosed voluntarily.

You making it public makes not personal. You having it on your wall makes it not personal. CC having a spot to encourage people to post their OCCUPATION makes it not personal.

They also have a spot for age and location which are also "personal" unless you willingly divulge that info. If CC actually decides to punish this I am going to fill this forum with people discussing age, location, etc...

And quite frankly I do not believe you are a teacher. I'm also do not believe I am 21 or living on a dirt road.

Long story short. A career can hardly be considered personal info by CC especially when they encourage the sharing of that info. It's also very harmless information.

jefjef wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

jefjef wrote:

jackal31 wrote:I agree....but the rule says "Don't ever post personal information of other users. Anywhere. Ever. Even if they already posted it somewhere else"....and that would include the personal profile page.

Well his career that is repeatedly referred to by him and is encouraged by CC to be wall displayed and is by woodruffs choice is not personal information.

That doesn't actually make sense, jefjef. It's still personal information...it's simply personal information that I have disclosed voluntarily.

You making it public makes not personal. You having it on your wall makes it not personal. CC having a spot to encourage people to post their OCCUPATION makes it not personal.

They also have a spot for age and location which are also "personal" unless you willingly divulge that info. If CC actually decides to punish this I am going to fill this forum with people discussing age, location, etc...

And quite frankly I do not believe you are a teacher. I'm also do not believe I am 21 or living on a dirt road.

Long story short. A career can hardly be considered personal info by CC especially when they encourage the sharing of that info. It's also very harmless information.

jefjef, you're still missing the real meat of the issue:

Woodruff using his career - which requires displaying leadership to minors - to justify his abusive posts on this site, is what not only made it "not personal" but ALSO invited discussion of the character he displays to minors.

So to suddenly claim that information is personal, thus sacrosanct - when folks post how the one doesn't justify the other and the one really calls the other into question - is rather like the prostitute claiming the john raped him.

My posts weren't particularly nasty, and would only be considered "abusive" by someone who disagrees that someone in his particular profession should reflect better character in a place full of minors, especially if he want's to "brag" about students in a way that can identify the students, thus who he is, to anyone on the site who happens to know the students whose vids he "bragged" with on this site.

On reading my post, jackal posted something that in itself didn't reflect any information, but agreed with my post about the character displayed. I don't know how he missed it, but he did, he missed that my post does discuss non-CC character displayed by on-CC posts. As a result, jackal feels he violated a rule.

I don't believe I should be considered to have violated a rule by discussing information that woodruff was trying to use to justify his displays here. By using his career to justify his posts, I fully believe that woodruff invited discussion of his career; and how his nasty posts might reflect questionably on that career.

If I'd been full of praise and glory, I'm positive woodruff wouldn't take issue with a post about his career; he's only ticked that I said he's not reflecting that career in a good light when he uses it on a site where he spouts filth in front of minors.

jefjef wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

jefjef wrote:

jackal31 wrote:I agree....but the rule says "Don't ever post personal information of other users. Anywhere. Ever. Even if they already posted it somewhere else"....and that would include the personal profile page.

Well his career that is repeatedly referred to by him and is encouraged by CC to be wall displayed and is by woodruffs choice is not personal information.

That doesn't actually make sense, jefjef. It's still personal information...it's simply personal information that I have disclosed voluntarily.

You making it public makes not personal. You having it on your wall makes it not personal. CC having a spot to encourage people to post their OCCUPATION makes it not personal.

They also have a spot for age and location which are also "personal" unless you willingly divulge that info. If CC actually decides to punish this I am going to fill this forum with people discussing age, location, etc...

And quite frankly I do not believe you are a teacher. I'm also do not believe I am 21 or living on a dirt road.

Long story short. A career can hardly be considered personal info by CC especially when they encourage the sharing of that info. It's also very harmless information.

can you 2 stop arguing over semantics

gannable wrote:oh please

Indeed...i strongly urge cc to give jackal the maximim available penalty, mainly on the basis that he is a sanctimonious litttle twerp.

I really hoped this would be a spoof, but no...he really is that conceited.

Throw the book at him...he's asking for it.

ljex wrote:can you 2 stop arguing over semantics

Can you please follow the rules - remain on topic - post only if you have something pertinent to add and stop trolling?

As for jackal I think he is being serious with this.

jefjef wrote:

ljex wrote:can you 2 stop arguing over semantics

Can you please follow the rules - remain on topic - post only if you have something pertinent to add and stop trolling?

As for jackal I think he is being serious with this.

Jefjef, I know the rules. Anyway just trying to stop others from taking away from the point of this thread by arguing over semantics. Neither of you will convince the other person they are right so just stop arguing. You both have validity behind your claims and essentially you are both right depending on how you look at the meaning of words. It is taking away from the point of this thread and is why i posted. You might want to look up trolling if you think thats what my previous post was.

jackal31, I think a C&A mod will give you a definitive awnser. But here is mine. Personal information is identifiable information, like a name or telephonenumber. Not an occupation that the poster is flounting across the forums. It is depending on circumstances. This is not the explenation you like but lets view it differently. Do you know of any user who has ever used a real name in a CC post that was not about himself.. hint obama, bush.. real names, real information, I can even name the adres of the guy! okay so that was a joke, but it shows that you can overdo it.

There is a flexibility in the rules that allows the site as a whole to function. Trying to pin down the specifics counters the idea and spirit. If you really want to know, then no, it is not smart to post personal information, neither is it smart to flame, abuse or create havoc. If not now, then in the end you will run against a brick wall. It could have come a bit earlier, or a bit later in some cases, but its not as if it was totally unwarrented overall. Some players seem to border the fence of bannable/ not bannable for years, that however does not excuse a particular players misbehaviour. Thats all, do onto others not what you want to not have done onto yourself. its that simple.

SirSebstar wrote:jackal31, I think a C&A mod will give you a definitive awnser. But here is mine. Personal information is identifiable information, like a name or telephonenumber. Not an occupation that the poster is flounting across the forums. It is depending on circumstances. This is not the explenation you like but lets view it differently. Do you know of any user who has ever used a real name in a CC post that was not about himself.. hint obama, bush.. real names, real information, I can even name the adres of the guy! okay so that was a joke, but it shows that you can overdo it.

There is a flexibility in the rules that allows the site as a whole to function. Trying to pin down the specifics counters the idea and spirit. If you really want to know, then no, it is not smart to post personal information, neither is it smart to flame, abuse or create havoc. If not now, then in the end you will run against a brick wall. It could have come a bit earlier, or a bit later in some cases, but its not as if it was totally unwarrented overall. Some players seem to border the fence of bannable/ not bannable for years, that however does not excuse a particular players misbehaviour. Thats all, do onto others not what you want to not have done onto yourself. its that simple.

I'm sorry, but this thread is simply an excuse to say "Look how fucking virtuous I am." He could have made this query privately (if he was actually genuinely concerned), but instead chose to write a bunch of arse as he attempts to tell us all how he tries to live to the highest of standards.

It makes me sick.

He should either be banned for making a mockery of this forum or, and I prefer this option, have the full letter of the law thrown at him for releasing personal information.

He is either too thick to understand the difference between releasing genuine personal information and commenting on publically known information released by the original party, or he using this thread as an excuse to big up his 'I'm a great guy and a future leader of children (heh heh heh) credentials.

Either way, hoist the bastard by his own petard and ban him for a month.

Flaming might get one banned, even if you are in a clanwar, espcially this this is C&A and not clans.
However, it could have gone to general, if jackal wanted the imput of fellow players and discuss it. Its clearly not a suggestion. Q&A does not really do extended rulequestions, so C&A might work. Doing this in private would defeats jackal's purpose. Also note the report is incomplete, since no case has been brought fourth.

but yea, it is a bit wierd, but not totally out of line nor unheard off. In general rule clarifications apply to particular cases but may be generalized by the mods. I can't remember the last time a mod drew lines in the sand concerning rule explanations, so I am unsure what jackal is expecting, but its a question that lives with more then one preson. Getting all worked up on that seems... silly..

though it pains me to say it, Mr C is right. if anyone needs me i'll be scouring my keyboard

I am quite careful to not directly flame and I don't believe I did in the previous post. Written in a colourful style it may be, but I didn't flame.

Mr C, this has nothing to do with my ego.

As far as the "highest" standards, being in any profession will require one to be an example in a certain form. Being someone who breaks the rules is not in my character. Also, being a good leader requires following owns examples.

Being a former coach, I found these two things were key in being successful. I lost sight of them recently and need to fix them within myself. So there is no need to attack my character. If you have something personal with me, thats your problem.

I simply refuse to believe you weren't well-aware that you hadn't broken any rules.

Therefore the thread is (at best for you) a total waste of time. On the other hand some may choose to believe my analysis of your thinking..in which case you have done yourself rather a lot of damage by making it.

There is nothing more hateful than deceitful piety.

Naturally I can't prove it (though if anyone chooses to read the original thread they may come to the same conclusion as me) but I have the right to suggest it.

well, if you read what was written, I too originally thought it was okay to post something like that. At that point is when it was brought to my attention. So if you dont believe me, thats fine. But thats the difference of really knowing someone personally and making judgements about them with no merit.