I guess my flaws are I learned two things too slowly and I am a very un trusting person. Well I feel like the second one really isn't a flaw but yeah
1 polubień
Why didn't you write one yourself?
-- (ferre):
that post was written by my friend on whatsapp
--
-- (ferre):
that post was written by my friend on whatsapp
--
Edytowano
3 polubień
MODERATION!
@Ferre is receiving a warning under Rules 1 and 4. There are several points to address so I'll lay them out now.
This is a unique case because, while I previously dealt with a rule 4 violation in the case of Daniel Salatek, he had revealed the name of someone who, to my knowledge, is not an active member of the community, and the violation in that case only extended to the young lady's name. This situation is peculiar insofar as ButcherVanity is an active member of this community, and the violation extended beyond a simple slip of the finger in referring to an old friend by their name.
The OP, in detail, lays out ButcherVanity's triggers, past relationship traumas and even lays out present cleavages in her relationship with Ferre.
Some of the details are traumatic and unfortunate to hear. Perhaps serving as an unwanted reminder of what was left behind, while others may be embarrassing to Butcher, as demonstrated by some comments in this thread.
And, this wouldn't be an issue if A, you had sought her permission to post those details, B, controlled yourself and didn't tell a story that was not, is not, and will forever remain, not your story to tell, or C, just stopped yourself at saying something along the lines of you "feel broken to see your girlfriend suffer".
So, it is for these reasons a warning is being administered.
There are several provisions in Rule One I considered in issuing this warning, namely Common Decency and the Chaos and Discord clause.
I have said on multiple occasions that I do not believe in censoring the body of a post unless extraordinary and peculiar circumstances call for such measures. I believe that protecting another person's privacy would be one such condition which falls under those extenuating conditions.
My invocation of Rule 4 was, frankly, more purposive in nature. A strict reading of the text suggests that the rule exclusively covers personally identifiable information. (PII) However, that interpretation is, also given the wording of Rule 4, naively and dangerously narrow. The purpose of the rule is to protect a user from having their privacy violated. Privacy isn't only about your data and dictates from Brussels, rather, privacy is about one's dignity and right to control what they share, or choose not to share about themselves. Whether someone's phone number is leaked or I write a post about another user accidentally pooping in our sleeping bag-never mind we were sleeping together in the bag-does not minimise the impact of the violation on the user's privacy.
Everyone is entitled to their privacy. That is a sovereign, fundamental human right unique to all men no matter where they are, and especially on this forum.
I will also be removing the offending material from post one, but this thread will remain open because it has the possibility to remain interesting and constructive.
Please Be So Guided.
@Ferre is receiving a warning under Rules 1 and 4. There are several points to address so I'll lay them out now.
This is a unique case because, while I previously dealt with a rule 4 violation in the case of Daniel Salatek, he had revealed the name of someone who, to my knowledge, is not an active member of the community, and the violation in that case only extended to the young lady's name. This situation is peculiar insofar as ButcherVanity is an active member of this community, and the violation extended beyond a simple slip of the finger in referring to an old friend by their name.
The OP, in detail, lays out ButcherVanity's triggers, past relationship traumas and even lays out present cleavages in her relationship with Ferre.
Some of the details are traumatic and unfortunate to hear. Perhaps serving as an unwanted reminder of what was left behind, while others may be embarrassing to Butcher, as demonstrated by some comments in this thread.
And, this wouldn't be an issue if A, you had sought her permission to post those details, B, controlled yourself and didn't tell a story that was not, is not, and will forever remain, not your story to tell, or C, just stopped yourself at saying something along the lines of you "feel broken to see your girlfriend suffer".
So, it is for these reasons a warning is being administered.
There are several provisions in Rule One I considered in issuing this warning, namely Common Decency and the Chaos and Discord clause.
I have said on multiple occasions that I do not believe in censoring the body of a post unless extraordinary and peculiar circumstances call for such measures. I believe that protecting another person's privacy would be one such condition which falls under those extenuating conditions.
My invocation of Rule 4 was, frankly, more purposive in nature. A strict reading of the text suggests that the rule exclusively covers personally identifiable information. (PII) However, that interpretation is, also given the wording of Rule 4, naively and dangerously narrow. The purpose of the rule is to protect a user from having their privacy violated. Privacy isn't only about your data and dictates from Brussels, rather, privacy is about one's dignity and right to control what they share, or choose not to share about themselves. Whether someone's phone number is leaked or I write a post about another user accidentally pooping in our sleeping bag-never mind we were sleeping together in the bag-does not minimise the impact of the violation on the user's privacy.
Everyone is entitled to their privacy. That is a sovereign, fundamental human right unique to all men no matter where they are, and especially on this forum.
I will also be removing the offending material from post one, but this thread will remain open because it has the possibility to remain interesting and constructive.
Please Be So Guided.
Edytowano
The problem is, you can just click view original post and see the original post. I'd personally be against turning off that feature, but you might want to consider deleting the post, and moving a redacted version at the start of the thread.
-- (Sir-Charlie):
MODERATION!
@Ferre is receiving a warning under Rules 1 and 4. There are several points to address so I'll lay them out now.
This is a unique case because, while I previously dealt with a rule 4 violation in the case of Daniel Salatek, he had revealed the name of someone who, to my knowledge, is not an active member of the community, and the violation in that case only extended to the young lady's name. This situation is peculiar insofar as ButcherVanity is an active member of this community, and the violation extended beyond a simple slip of the finger in referring to an old friend by their name.
The OP, in detail, lays out ButcherVanity's triggers, past relationship traumas and even lays out present cleavages in her relationship with Ferre.
Some of the details are traumatic and unfortunate to hear. Perhaps serving as an unwanted reminder of what was left behind, while others may be embarrassing to Butcher, as demonstrated by some comments in this thread.
And, this wouldn't be an issue if A, you had sought her permission to post those details, B, controlled yourself and didn't tell a story that was not, is not, and will forever remain, not your story to tell, or C, just stopped yourself at saying something along the lines of you "feel broken to see your girlfriend suffer".
So, it is for these reasons a warning is being administered.
There are several provisions in Rule One I considered in issuing this warning, namely Common Decency and the Chaos and Discord clause.
I have said on multiple occasions that I do not believe in censoring the body of a post unless extraordinary and peculiar circumstances call for such measures. I believe that protecting another person's privacy would be one such condition which falls under those extenuating conditions.
My invocation of Rule 4 was, frankly, more purposive in nature. A strict reading of the text suggests that the rule exclusively covers personally identifiable information. (PII) However, that interpretation is, also given the wording of Rule 4, naively and dangerously narrow. The purpose of the rule is to protect a user from having their privacy violated. Privacy isn't only about your data and dictates from Brussels, rather, privacy is about one's dignity and right to control what they share, or choose not to share about themselves. Whether someone's phone number is leaked or I write a post about another user accidentally pooping in our sleeping bag-never mind we were sleeping together in the bag-does not minimise the impact on the user's privacy.
Everyone is entitled to their privacy. That is a sovereign, fundamental human right unique to all men no matter where they are, and especially on this forum.
I will also be removing the offending material from post one, but this thread will remain open because it has the possibility to remain interesting and constructive.
Please Be So Guided.
--
-- (Sir-Charlie):
MODERATION!
@Ferre is receiving a warning under Rules 1 and 4. There are several points to address so I'll lay them out now.
This is a unique case because, while I previously dealt with a rule 4 violation in the case of Daniel Salatek, he had revealed the name of someone who, to my knowledge, is not an active member of the community, and the violation in that case only extended to the young lady's name. This situation is peculiar insofar as ButcherVanity is an active member of this community, and the violation extended beyond a simple slip of the finger in referring to an old friend by their name.
The OP, in detail, lays out ButcherVanity's triggers, past relationship traumas and even lays out present cleavages in her relationship with Ferre.
Some of the details are traumatic and unfortunate to hear. Perhaps serving as an unwanted reminder of what was left behind, while others may be embarrassing to Butcher, as demonstrated by some comments in this thread.
And, this wouldn't be an issue if A, you had sought her permission to post those details, B, controlled yourself and didn't tell a story that was not, is not, and will forever remain, not your story to tell, or C, just stopped yourself at saying something along the lines of you "feel broken to see your girlfriend suffer".
So, it is for these reasons a warning is being administered.
There are several provisions in Rule One I considered in issuing this warning, namely Common Decency and the Chaos and Discord clause.
I have said on multiple occasions that I do not believe in censoring the body of a post unless extraordinary and peculiar circumstances call for such measures. I believe that protecting another person's privacy would be one such condition which falls under those extenuating conditions.
My invocation of Rule 4 was, frankly, more purposive in nature. A strict reading of the text suggests that the rule exclusively covers personally identifiable information. (PII) However, that interpretation is, also given the wording of Rule 4, naively and dangerously narrow. The purpose of the rule is to protect a user from having their privacy violated. Privacy isn't only about your data and dictates from Brussels, rather, privacy is about one's dignity and right to control what they share, or choose not to share about themselves. Whether someone's phone number is leaked or I write a post about another user accidentally pooping in our sleeping bag-never mind we were sleeping together in the bag-does not minimise the impact on the user's privacy.
Everyone is entitled to their privacy. That is a sovereign, fundamental human right unique to all men no matter where they are, and especially on this forum.
I will also be removing the offending material from post one, but this thread will remain open because it has the possibility to remain interesting and constructive.
Please Be So Guided.
--
I had no idea that was even a thing at all. Thanks for the tip, will get on that.
Done