Poll: public posting of irc logs

I don't know how to post it, but there is a thread on the forum where Elu asks, "I would like to ask Hileville if his log with Blue Wolf may be published now." And Hileville responds, "Yes you can release it."

Flem, you have access to the thread, so you can corroborate this.

What is the thread called? I have not read that before.

PM me if it is a private thread.

edit: after a bit of searching I have found the thread GBM refers to. I can confirm that in that thread Hileville seems to give Eluvatar permission to publicly post the log. This seems to contradict what he said in IRC chat to Blue Wolf, and I would welcome some clarification on this by Hileville.

So we know that Eluvatar sought permission from one participant in the chat. Actually, that makes matters worse. It shows that Elu recognised that seeking permission was necessary, but only sought it from one side of the conversation.

Unless he thought only Hileville needed to give permission because Hileville was the one who passed the log on in the first place? But that seems a very odd thing to think. a conversation is very different from a monologue

Originally I supported the option Private conversations ought not to be posted, but public channels like #tnp are fair game.
But now I'm quite confused and I will think about this matter again.

Earlier I voted for "Private conversations ought not to be posted, but public channels like #tnp are fair game". Then this divisive conflict erupted. I believe all this Releasing of logs of #tnp conversations may eventually lead to a situation were people well not be able to speak freely any more on IRC, out of fear that transcripts of there conversations will be released, or used out of context. I must admit if I could change my vote I would.

10. “Fraud” is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.

Out out Context logs would be fraud.

Oh, so what? That fraud law cannot make people unhear what they already heard. The posting of chat is a dangerous business. Chat is not the same as forum post. It's immediacy lends itself to dialogue which is often not well-considered speech. The dynamic of chat allows for all sorts of manipulation and even entrapment. Also, and this is a biggie, people talk about RL stuff that isn't intended for forum consumption.

I draw the line at "never," since there are no murky waters, no gray areas, no question about the legality or the ethics of it.

If folks are using an irc channel for government business, how hard is it to ask for everyone's permission to post? It should be standard protocol.

Defining fraud after the fact does not change the act itself. This log of a Private conversation was released unilaterally by the Delegate in a public place without review from a court or posted in the RA Private halls. This release of a private conversation posted very publicly for the entire Forum to see seems to be more Personal than Just.

Great Bights Mum:

Oh, so what? That fraud law cannot make people unhear what they already heard. The posting of chat is a dangerous business. Chat is not the same as forum post. It's immediacy lends itself to dialogue which is often not well-considered speech. The dynamic of chat allows for all sorts of manipulation and even entrapment. Also, and this is a biggie, people talk about RL stuff that isn't intended for forum consumption.

I draw the line at "never," since there are no murky waters, no gray areas, no question about the legality or the ethics of it.

If folks are using an irc channel for government business, how hard is it to ask for everyone's permission to post? It should be standard protocol.

Click to expand...

You just gave some examples of log sharing which is egregious, and then said there are no gray areas.

If there are egregious examples, and other examples, there are shades of gray.

I am firmly of the opinion that there are situations where fully keeping someone's confidence is the wrong thing to do.

I think there are ethical considerations greater than keeping confidence. Protecting someone's personal privacy, for instance, is one. I think that paraphrasing some revelatory information someone said to you privately about themselves and posting that would be far, far, far more serious than quoting them verbatim talking about regional affairs. And we have no rules whatsoever about actually keeping confidence and not talking about what others have told us. (Though Terms of Use would cover the posting of personal information: it's not allowed).

The Council of Five's members have all agreed that their cabinet meetings are publishable excepting when the council moves to a closed session. The postability of cabinet logs is thus not in question.

Yet again I must clarify that I have no personal animus whatsoever toward Blue Wolf II. I simply believe that I have a responsibility to the region to share such information as may be essential to the security of our democratic government. Short term or long.

I believe that Criminal Charges have not been filed because Blue Wolf II is very possibly protected by loopholes in our law as it stood at the time, as shown by a previous trial of Blue Wolf II with a similar sort of evidence involved. While under current law that loophole in the definition of Sedition is closed, we cannot and should not apply it retroactively.

Many people have said that they approve of the public posting of irc logs without the permission of participants when there is a clear public interest or regional security issue. eluvatar has said that this, rather than a political motive, was behind his posting up a private IRC chat. What i do not yet understand is where the regional security or regional interest issue is?

Elu has said that the trigger was my seeking exemption from SC requirements for Blue Wolf. Fine. But even IF Blue wolf had been exempted he would still have had to have been elected onto that body by the current SC. Unlikely given the makeup of that group. And even IF he had been elected to the SC, he would still have been only one voice on that committee among several.

So where was the clear and present danger? Perhaps Eluvatar could explain why this gross breech of etiquette was soooo necessary to keep us safe?

I don't know what the Minister of Cheese's pants have to do etiquette, but I will try to address your question.

It is my belief that a crucial factor in Blue Wolf II's choice to abort his plan was the presence (and preparedness) of several influential nations committed to democratic governance and pledged to oppose the violent overthrow of the democratically adopted system of government. Were Blue Wolf II to attain a similar level of influence, it's easy to surmise he might not be restrained by them.

I have no interest in inventing alternate ways to prevent that possible outcome: I am following the democratic path and presenting the information I possess to the Regional Assembly so they can themselves judge what concerns are appropriate.

Were Blue Wolf II to attain a similar level of influence, it's easy to surmise he might not be restrained by them

Click to expand...

That is sort of answering a question I was not asking. What you saying is that if Blue Wolf's influence rises he will be ... dealt with .... in a way that would not be possible if he was in the SC.

Mkay. To me the issue seems to be well short of the need to post public logs. But at least Blue Wolf has been effectively kneecapped, so - result!!!

That wasn't what I was saying at all.

But certainly if he were an SC member the region would be advancing that scenario.

More the half of the respondents right now (16/30) believe that either 1) logs should never be released OR 2) private logs should never be released.

Is the intention of this poll to pass a law crimilizing such activity? Because there is obviously still the administrative position, which has yet to be decided (that is, whether the current policy will be amended or not).

post self deleted