is personal info fair game if it is posted for all to see?

[manny78]

understandably not threats of violence or real life shit of any kind.
but let's say i made a thread about being a meth head and how much i love and do meth.
would it not be fair for others to use that against me, in various types of arguements?
i think this has gotten blurred here a bit, if it's personal you shouldn't mention it on a open forum.
opinions?
discuss

What you post on the public domain belongs to the public domain IMHO. So if XYZ posts about how he likes to have his butthole drilled by brothas, then its fair game to use it. Dont want problems ? Very easy, dont post any personal info...

 

[heatherrae]

Well, that's fine then. You guys have at it with attacking people about their kids, etc. I'll continue to black you all out. Free speech and all. I don't want my bombs censored...lol.

 

[stilleto]

to me, here's where the situation gets blurry.

scenario 1:
joe posts how much he likes to do meth. luv luv luv that meth, he says.
some time later, he blasts someone for juicing. that person says, "wait, so juicing is bad, but THIS is okay?" and posts the link to his 'i luv meth' thread.

scenario 2:
joe posts that he has a meth problem and can't get off. it's ruining his life.
some time later, he gets into a discussion with billy, and billy says, "STFU you meth addict. how the F are you going to argue with me when your life is falling apart like a sand castle because you're too weak to get off the junk?"

in both scenarios, joe could say, "i'm just using what he already posted", but one is not at all fair.

 

[Big Rick Rock]

to me, here's where the situation gets blurry.

scenario 1:
joe posts how much he likes to do meth. luv luv luv that meth, he says.
some time later, he blasts someone for juicing. that person says, "wait, so juicing is bad, but THIS is okay?" and posts the link to his 'i luv meth' thread.

scenario 2:
joe posts that he has a meth problem and can't get off. it's ruining his life.
some time later, he gets into a discussion with billy, and billy says, "STFU you meth addict. how the F are you going to argue with me when your life is falling apart like a sand castle because you're too weak to get off the junk?"

in both scenarios, joe could say, "i'm just using what he already posted", but one is not at all fair.

Both seem like common disagreements between members. Each warrants some intervention if somebody complaints.

What we are trying to do away with, is "that person" or "billy" being the same guy who continuously gets into it with members and Mods and Admins. One after the other. He/she has a new flavor of the month who is the target of his/her attention.
We have guys here who have done this for years. They do just enough to fuck with other people, but stay just within the rules so they won't get banned. If they get timed out, they want to turn around and get technical about the rules... They just have issues with a different person every couple of months. Some times they cycle their abuse of others... These guys end up getting banned in the long run anyway. Lets start to ban them early now...

They get a couple of warnings, once we identify the pattern, they get axed.

These outrageous characters seem to also set a bad example for others who rather join them in their bullshit, than stay within an acceptable pattern of behavior, and risk becoming the next person whom they fuck with.

 

[walliwalibus]

Seems logical, and efficient. Aren't we all just one big happy group of people with a same common ground anyway... and then we have the non-common ground chat area.... ah yeah, the ever so popular C&C..... I am with ya man, I follow what your saying totally.

 

[stilleto]

Both seem like common disagreements between members. Each warrants some intervention if somebody complaints.

What we are trying to do away with, is "that person" or "billy" being the same guy who continuously gets into it with members and Mods and Admins. One after the other. He/she has a new flavor of the month who is the target of his/her attention.
We have guys here who have done this for years. They do just enough to fuck with other people, but stay just within the rules so they won't get banned. If they get timed out, they want to turn around and get technical about the rules... They just have issues with a different person every couple of months. Some times they cycle their abuse of others... These guys end up getting banned in the long run anyway. Lets start to ban them early now...

They get a couple of warnings, once we identify the pattern, they get axed.

These outrageous characters seem to also set a bad example for others who rather join them in their bullshit, than stay within an acceptable pattern of behavior, and risk becoming the next person whom they fuck with.

NOW you see where i was going.
you're smarter than i look.

 

[needtogetaas]

Both seem like common disagreements between members. Each warrants some intervention if somebody complaints.

What we are trying to do away with, is "that person" or "billy" being the same guy who continuously gets into it with members and Mods and Admins. One after the other. He/she has a new flavor of the month who is the target of his/her attention.
We have guys here who have done this for years. They do just enough to fuck with other people, but stay just within the rules so they won't get banned. If they get timed out, they want to turn around and get technical about the rules... They just have issues with a different person every couple of months. Some times they cycle their abuse of others... These guys end up getting banned in the long run anyway. Lets start to ban them early now...

They get a couple of warnings, once we identify the pattern, they get axed.

These outrageous characters seem to also set a bad example for others who rather join them in their bullshit, than stay within an acceptable pattern of behavior, and risk becoming the next person whom they fuck with.

sounds good.

 

[heatherrae]

Both seem like common disagreements between members. Each warrants some intervention if somebody complaints.

What we are trying to do away with, is "that person" or "billy" being the same guy who continuously gets into it with members and Mods and Admins. One after the other. He/she has a new flavor of the month who is the target of his/her attention.
We have guys here who have done this for years. They do just enough to fuck with other people, but stay just within the rules so they won't get banned. If they get timed out, they want to turn around and get technical about the rules... They just have issues with a different person every couple of months. Some times they cycle their abuse of others... These guys end up getting banned in the long run anyway. Lets start to ban them early now...

They get a couple of warnings, once we identify the pattern, they get axed.

These outrageous characters seem to also set a bad example for others who rather join them in their bullshit, than stay within an acceptable pattern of behavior, and risk becoming the next person whom they fuck with.

I agree. Exactly. There are tiffs between member, which always happens. Then, there are the ones who bait people and pick fights constantly, and its like being in romper room.

 

[manny78]

to me, here's where the situation gets blurry.

scenario 1:
joe posts how much he likes to do meth. luv luv luv that meth, he says.
some time later, he blasts someone for juicing. that person says, "wait, so juicing is bad, but THIS is okay?" and posts the link to his 'i luv meth' thread.

scenario 2:
joe posts that he has a meth problem and can't get off. it's ruining his life.
some time later, he gets into a discussion with billy, and billy says, "STFU you meth addict. how the F are you going to argue with me when your life is falling apart like a sand castle because you're too weak to get off the junk?"

in both scenarios, joe could say, "i'm just using what he already posted", but one is not at all fair.

Well being politically correct I'd say yes, #2 is not fair let's be honest: we dont value a junkie's opinion the same as a regular Joe. And in real life, I give zero credibility to meth addicts. But it's all good, we do the same with our politicians, we take a small little bit (irrelevant most of the time) and try to justify he/she isn't worth shit cause of that.

 

[binö]

Thanks, I have a mean tail LOL.

Bino: Why would you want to throw something up in someone's face? I don't understand as nobody is perfect and your beginning to sound like, like you like to throw stuff in people's face. Maybe someone had a very bad incident right, and mentioned it. It happened once right. You would be low enough to throw that in their face later on down the road? I see your point to some degree...

i gave a hypothetical situation and asked a honest question.
i've been made fun of/lol'ed at/being busted on numerous times and i never cried about it or asked for protection