Here is a situation I haven't come across before.

[Anonymous]

Posting where someone works is ethical? All because he/she called the OP's post, Inane? Is that really something you feel comfortable doing and think it's okay?

[Anonymous]

I am not the poster above and don't like generally mean-spirited posts that don't help but just snark. Nonetheless, I do not think it is appropriate to list a person's employer on this forum. I do not access this forum from work but, if I did, it would be obvious to anyone googling who I was because I work in a four person office with three men (not parents and certainly not pregnant). Therefore, what you're doing could be tantamount to exposing someone publicly on an anonymous forum. I'm not sure what the lawyers would say about your legal obligations to uphold the anonymity of the forum, but I certainly think what you did was unethical. I honestly don't mean to offend you personally, but I think it raises a legitimate concern. If this is an anonymous forum, it should remain anonymous except for dire circumstances where someone is threatening another poster harm, etc. If anonymity is at the discretion of the site admin alone, that should be made clear. I think somewhere you say in your rules of posting that anonymous really only means "mostly" anonymous, but considering women use this forum to post very private thoughts and concerns, the anonymous nature of the forum should be respected.

Seriously think you should take down the name of her employer. Not cool, not ethical, not a good thing for this otherwise great site.

[Anonymous]

Also, FWIW, the person you called out was being a pissant. But that still doesn't constitute ample justification for exposing her.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Also, FWIW, the person you called out was being a pissant. But that still doesn't constitute ample justification for exposing her.

I don't think mentioning the name of a west coast bank has anything in common with a naming a four person office. Nor does revealing someone as a troll who has repeatedly disrupted a thread have anything in common with a mom posting personal info. If the poster was not trolling, I wouldn't have even noticed her.

Finally, it cannot be said enough. Anonymous posting is a privilege, not a right. Abuse and you lose it.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, FWIW, the person you called out was being a pissant. But that still doesn't constitute ample justification for exposing her.

I don't think mentioning the name of a west coast bank has anything in common with a naming a four person office. Nor does revealing someone as a troll who has repeatedly disrupted a thread have anything in common with a mom posting personal info. If the poster was not trolling, I wouldn't have even noticed her.

Finally, it cannot be said enough. Anonymous posting is a privilege, not a right. Abuse and you lose it.

Well, okay.... But do you really say that up front? If anonymous posting is a privilege, not a right, then you should make it clear that you will expose the people whose posts you consider abusive and also make it clear what constitutes the abuse of anonymity. I've thought many times, either because someone has been a jerk to me or even because I've been a jerk and then regretted it, that this forum might be a stronger one if we all had identifiable screen names. That would certainly tone down some of the animosity and reduce the trolling, as you call it, but surely it would do so at the expense of people feeling comfortable posting deeply private info.

In any case, listen, I understand that the person was disruptive but there are so many snarky replies like that and those people don't get outed so it's difficult to see what standard you're applying when you decide to out someone. I've had people reply to me and say things like I'm going to be a terrible mother and that my husband must hate his life simply because I wanted an early check out from a hospital after giving birth! I'd call that more abusive than someone calling a post inane, or whatever went down here but I guess one person's abuse is just another person's friendly reply. Ha ha. In any case, it just seems hard to see the standards applied here as anything other than arbitrary.

Maybe I don't get it that this is a privately owned website and not a true public service / greater good type site. Still, if you sell something as being anonymous it should either be 100 percent anonymous, 100 percent identifiable, or at least, if one is to be "outed," then certain preestablished standards should apply so posters would know when they were skirting the law, so to speak, and risking an outing. I'm really not a lawyer, btw! I just think people might lose their nerve about posting private things if we're not very secure that we're going to remain anonymous. Again, don't mean to gang up on you with this other poster, b/c I doubt I'd agree with him / her on much else (though who knows) and don't like mean-spirited replies for the sake of being mean in any case. Just sharing my thoughts. That's my final word on the subject -- it's your site and all.

[Anonymous]

It is Jeff's site (and Maria's). I personally think whenever I have said something that I would be horrified for people to know I have said, I probably shouldn't have done it. Obviously, I am not talking about extremely personal and painful posts (and this is the only site I know of for those; the Berkeley parents network is geography restricted, I think). I am talking about the kind of posts that make other people call you nuts and make you feel sort of sick you said it the next day. Or that indicate you are just being a jerk for sport because you have got nothing better to do. For pure snark, I would suggest commenting on TMZ instead.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Well, okay.... But do you really say that up front? If anonymous posting is a privilege, not a right, then you should make it clear that you will expose the people whose posts you consider abusive and also make it clear what constitutes the abuse of anonymity.

Three quick points:

1) I don't really say anything up front about anonymous posting. I neither encourage or discourage it. People's expectations are their own and not something that i have meant to create;

2) This particular incident has a bit of history about which you may be unaware. See this thread for details:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/46311.page

Short story: Because I thought a truly inane post might be spam, I looked up the IP address in order to block it. I then realized it was not spam and deleted it. I also deleted a second snarky response that was posted by a friend of the poster whose post I deleted. We then engaged in a back and forth about why their posts were deleted. After that, they returned to the scene of the crime to repeat their earlier actions. For some reason these two were determined to ridicule the original poster of this thread. I was not willing to stand by and allow that to happen.

3) There are hundreds of posts here complaining that the forums are not moderated enough and/or that anonymous posts should be prohibited. I always say that any attempt at increased moderation on my part would be arbitrary and capricious and that nobody would want me to do it. This thread can serve as an example of that.

[Anonymous]

Oh, ok, I see. FWIW, I think there has been an increase in West Coast postings ever since the octo-mom wars, where people were landing here after googling so maybe they are still gracing us with their presence. There were also those random "I'm a cheater" faux posts on the dad's forum that seemed pretty obviously trollish and perhaps the same sort of thing -- somebody who was just being disruptive for the sake of being disruptive or upsetting people for a laugh. I didn't realize that the posters had been deleted previously and then posted the same objectionable posts.

[Anonymous]

Griper here. I see now that you, Jeff, would be a shoddy policeman as you work the facts to fit your case. Yes, I posted in the forum you listed above but only to jokingly recommend that you ban my friend. I am NOT one of the people who had their comments deleted by you. And you know this because neither comment removed came from my address. So you skew the information to your own benefit, making it seem like two of us are just all over the place, wreaking havoc. I'm sure you have some way of telling how often I have posted on this site and it's very infrequently. Yes, I don't just always play nicey-nice when I post but apparently, non-superpolite posts are so unwelcome here that the site admin will capriciously post non-public information about a poster and somehow have a clear conscience about it. So already you are creating an atmosphere that discourages HONEST FEEDBACK.

Jeff, the reason you choose to be "arbitrary and capricious" in your adminstration of this site is because you don't have the backbone to commit to either total anonymity or to just making it a registration site. It's moralistically lazy. You seem like a pretty well-spoken and thoughtful person in other threads I've read but on this issue that questions your behavior as a site admin, you seem to have all ready tried and convicted me on dubious evidence. Meanwhile, you have scantly questioned your own actions, which others have also pointed out as being troubling. (19:45, 19:47)

To the issue of snark. What I posted wasn't the politest thing I could have said, that is very true. It was not a personal attack, however. It was a short sharp shock (if I flatter myself to think that anyone takes what I say seriously, which I doubt) to get the poster to really think about whether this supposed conundrum they were in really needed outside, anonymous (or so we thought) input. It didn't. She effectly was spammed and it doesn't take a genius to realize that the person that spammed her isn't worth replying to OR just reply and say "no thanks". Just make the call. So I wasn't polite. You taking up OP's defense by sanitizing the thread (deleting posts, posting my employers name) makes me think that the OP is known to you and you're protecting them from snarky comments. There's something more to this than you outing me for being snarky, because this whole site is rife with it and 99% of the time, it is left alone. Jeff, we're all adults here. Sometimes, when seeking advice, we don't get the answer we're wanting or expecting but we're grownups and we can decide for ourselves what is helpful and what is not. Don't like snark? SKIP OVER IT. You deleting posts because they aren't "nice" isn't exactly giving great reverence to the 1st Amendment, like you say in the FAQ. It's pretty much completely pissing on the 1st Amendment. Yes, threats and hate speech should be barred but NONE of this was anything like that. Great reverence, my ass. You should just take that off of the FAQ as false advertising. At least be honest about your lack of commitment to free speech.

This is my last post on this site. Give it a mini "hurrah" if you like. Most online communities welcome people who contribute to their site. Here, it is only if you're willing to sugarcoat your message. I guess the importance you feel by "ruling" over the contributors here must be a great feeling for you. People sucking up to you all the time, your word (here) being law...good stuff, Maynard. However, it doesn't make you a good admin. Judgement, wisdom and tolerance is what makes a good admin. You don't have it.

Good day to you.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I also deleted a second snarky response that was posted by a friend of the poster whose post I deleted. We then engaged in a back and forth about why their posts were deleted. After that, they returned to the scene of the crime to repeat their earlier actions. For some reason these two were determined to ridicule the original poster of this thread. I was not willing to stand by and allow that to happen.

That is so FALSE! I was the OP of the Censorship thread and I was just asking a question. I made ONE remark on the Avon thread about joining the witness protection program. You removed that comment, as well as a few others. One post (not mine) even questioned the OP's choice of words "Gobsmacked" and you deleted that one, as well. So, to sit there and say it's "spam" well, I hardly believe that.

Secondly, as the OP of the censorship thread, I did NOT come back to the scene of the crime and post the "inane" comment, like you accused me of doing.

I dont like how you've made it seem that it's okay to announce someones place of employment for making TWO comments about a post being INANE. Thats ALL this poster did.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Good day to you.

Bu-bye!

Your posts are hilarious. All of this because you think you have the right to tell another poster that her post was not worth posting and was inane. Perhaps the original post was worthless. But guess what? Your reply was worth even less. Please tell me what made this reply so valuable?

I just got a jar of mayonnaise and it has one of those tamper-proof seals on it. Should I open it? On the one hand, I'm hungry but on the other, I'm worried about my safety.

You think there is a moral issue involved in whether you can post this sort of reply?

I love your protests about the revelation that you work at First Independent Bank. The bank has 500 employees. Even if someone where able to identify which of the 500 you are, all they would know is that you have a concern about mayonnaise and like to judge the value of other people's posts. This is what has you worked up in a frenzy?

Yes, we like to have active users. But, sorry, we can survive without posts about mayonnaise.

[Anonymous]

Jeff, Just admit that the OP of this thread was your wife and you were annoyed that people were mocking her. I have never seen such a ridiculous excuse for outing someones place of employment. The only thing that makes sense is that you had some emotional tie to this OP to stick up for her the way you did. I've seen MUCH worse things said in other posts and you didn't even bat an eyelash.

Nice try. Yeah right and You WISH!

[Anonymous]

Since you ASKED, I'll reply. Let's see...is my mayo post an example of a decision that needs no outside input? I think it is. Funny that you can't extrapolate an example to the point that is being made. But also? You pick up on the weirdest things to reply to. No reply to any of the ethical issues brought up. No, you choose to bring up a post about mayonnaise that you don't understand because you have no sense of irony.

And you're not damaging me by mentioning my place of employment NOR the fact that now you're done outside research into how many employees my company has, which is information not contained within my IP info, Jeff. That's just creepy. You've also threatened to expose MORE information about me and that's downright Draconian. Why will you not address the issues of your own behavior? No, it's not that damaging of a revelation, mentioning my employer. It's the PRINCIPLE that is troubling. I've tried reasoning with you and you put yourself completely blameless on this...in fact, you continue to do it because someone is challenging your authori-tah. I KNOW you can be very articulate when you care about an issue. So why not discuss this with me instead of continuing to dismiss my valid concerns? THIS is what happens when you have an issue with the admin? Even more free speech killed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, Just admit that the OP of this thread was your wife and you were annoyed that people were mocking her. I have never seen such a ridiculous excuse for outing someones place of employment. The only thing that makes sense is that you had some emotional tie to this OP to stick up for her the way you did. I've seen MUCH worse things said in other posts and you didn't even bat an eyelash.

Nice try. Yeah right and You WISH!

Or maybe Jeff is selling Avon and doesn't want the millions of devoted followers of this site to think wondering how to respond to his 'party' invitations is inane.

Or maybe he has a crush on the OP after figuring out which of the hundreds of posts here are from her and putting together a mental image of who she is and what she's like, and hopes that sticking up for her here will win her over in the real world and they can finally meet, sort of like in "You've Got Mail." Oh, he's married. Never mind, I forgot.

Or maybe the outed PP's place of employment holds Jeff's mortgage and he is underwater and wants to have some leverage when begging for a new interest rate.

Or maybe he got sick eating mayo in 4th grade and has had a hard time even reading the word 'mayo' ever since.

Or maybe -- oh, wait, I have something to do. What the heck?? That's certainly unusual....

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Since you ASKED, I'll reply. Let's see...is my mayo post an example of a decision that needs no outside input? I think it is. Funny that you can't extrapolate an example to the point that is being made. But also? You pick up on the weirdest things to reply to. No reply to any of the ethical issues brought up. No, you choose to bring up a post about mayonnaise that you don't understand because you have no sense of irony.

And you're not damaging me by mentioning my place of employment NOR the fact that now you're done outside research into how many employees my company has, which is information not contained within my IP info, Jeff. That's just creepy. You've also threatened to expose MORE information about me and that's downright Draconian. Why will you not address the issues of your own behavior? No, it's not that damaging of a revelation, mentioning my employer. It's the PRINCIPLE that is troubling. I've tried reasoning with you and you put yourself completely blameless on this...in fact, you continue to do it because someone is challenging your authori-tah. I KNOW you can be very articulate when you care about an issue. So why not discuss this with me instead of continuing to dismiss my valid concerns? THIS is what happens when you have an issue with the admin? Even more free speech killed.

Look, I'm sorry, but you are insane. There is no principle involved. You have no right to call other posts inane. You have no right to post an ironic response about mayonnaise. I know that your bank has 500 employees because I looked that up before I posted the name of the bank. I checked precisely because I wanted to avoid a "four-person office" situation. You complain about killing free speech when most of this thread is composed of your rants about how much I suck. Just what part of your speech is being killed?

I never threatened to reveal additional information about you. I said you were lucky that all I did was mention your employer's name. Where is the threat you describe? One thing I could have done, but you were lucky I didn't, is block your IP address. Then you wouldn't have been able to entertain us all with your tirades about you inalienable right to flame other posters.

In response to your friend and co-conspirator who thinks the IP is my wife. Wrong. I have no idea who the OP is or if she is even reading this thread once it turned totally off-topic. I've tried to explain this to you, but let me try again:

1) I clicked on the thread because I was curious about a situation that someone hadn't encountered before;
2) I saw that there was a response saying "fire her immediately" which made absolutely no sense in the context;
3) Because several spambots have made initial posts saying things such as "nice site here" and "I agree with your post" only to follow with a bajillion automated spams, I checked the IP of the poster.
4) The ip was from the west coast (note, I am being intentionally vague) and I evaluated the post as not being from a spambot. Had I determined differently, I would have blocked the IP address. However, while the post was not spam, it was nonsensical. Therefore, I deleted it. Furthermore, following that post was another telling the OP to join the witness protection program. I deleted that one too. No real reason other than it appeared related to the first one I had deleted and it didn't add anything to the thread.

Now, it all could have ended there, but then one of you started a completely new thread asking why your all so important messages had been deleted. I explained the circumstances, but then -- for only reasons you can explain -- you both came back here and started posting your messages that still remain above.

At that point, I realized that while I'm not dealing with spammers, I am dealing with a couple of first-class wack jobs. Here are people posting from the west coast on a DC parenting website and doing nothing but trolling a very innocuous thread. Two of the posts were from a bank. So, okay. The posters had already trolled the thread and had their posts removed. They had started another thread and been told that trolling this thread was not appropriate. And, after all that, they trolled some more. So, I reacted by posting a message suggesting that at least one of the trolls should be too busy foreclosing on houses and seeking a government bailout given that she worked at First Independent Bank. I am not sure why you think that your place of employment is top secret information. Maybe the bank sucks and you are embarrassed about it. I don't know. But, frankly, I don't care. I am still curious about your interest in this website. The website was not created for trolls. You haven't given any indication that you have any interest in the parenting aspects of the website. For you, it's just a playground in which to entertain yourself.

So, let me say this as clearly as I can. You can choose to be good members of the community and participate in a constructive manner. Or, you can fuck off. Those are your choices. Do I give everyone here that choice? No, only you two. Why? Because you're special.