Calling out someone's RL sex in the forums - right or wrong?

If it is signed by "Rock" it suggests it might be.

Pep (I notice you haven't actually denied it yet)

Edited

The topic isn't "against the ToS" or "a violation of Community Standards", but "right or wrong". A much more complex and nuanced question.

No Actually it is still Correct, Community Standards are a part of the TOS.

4.1 You agree to abide by certain rules of conduct, including the Community Standards and other rules prohibiting illegal and other practices that Linden Lab deems harmful.

But the point was it is clearly stated.

Actually no it is not Argent.

The rule is clearly defined. You me and everyone else here is not permtted to restate any personal Real Life information about any other member, no matter how we found out about it, other than what is clearly stated in their profile.

Regards,

samatha

I don't think so, it's interesting. I had no idea you could only repeat stuff from a persons profile. The gender thing I had picked up on, but the rest has been good to find out.

But you are guilty of that yourself in your previous post, by quoting me from a previous post about my home county (this is not in my Profile). Sorry for baiting a hook like that, but you might like to revisit your above statement.

THAP

I think you may have inferred an agenda in my message that I did not intent to imply.

Even if the ToS or CS didn't say that, I would still argue that it is wrong.

Interesting point.
Is using the forum 'quote' feature a TOS violation?

I suspect not (perhaps unless it is somehow misused). And yet if I recall correctly to copy / paste inworld Ims (and chat?) is a violation of the TOS?

That basically borders on cyber-stalking. If a person is looking up things a person did or said some notable time in the past, or carrying grudges and comments over from past discussions or other forums or communities or what-have-you, you're dealing with a stalker. In some places, it may even be a criminal law issue if it continues.

Certainly using the quote feature isn't a violation per se. And in this case, I believe the point wasn't to claim that it was a violation, but that to show that a literal interpretation of some vague wording could lead to an obviously silly conclusion.

However, I believe that point ignores the significance of the word "share" in the TOS. That happens to be one of those vague words, but I believe the intent is that "sharing" means "providing the information to someone who didn't have access to the original".

In other words, this sort of quote can't be in violation of this particular part of the TOS, because the information hasn't been shared beyond the group of people with access to the original. That doesn't mean that the subject matter of the base post couldn't be in violation in some other way.

Blindingly sensible.

(And an excellent explication of the problems inherent in over-interpreting vaguely-worded rules.)

As to whether the situation described (mentioning earlier Forum posts made by someone who is claiming something about themselves that's inconsistent with their earlier claims) is ethical or unethical:

I have to join with others and say 'it depends on the context.'

For me, if Person A had typed, for example, "I don't care what avatars do in their skyboxes" back in January, and then in a May thread had typed "I think SL was correct in banning depictions of disemboweling babies", and Person B had come into the May thread with a HA HA, YOU ARE BUSTED!! post quoting the January post....then I'd think Person B was kind of a creepy stalker and jerk (and possibly a bit IQ-challenged).

But, if Person A had typed back in January "sorry guys I was away having prostate surgery" and "yeah, I was a sperm donor once"--------------and then in May typed "the OP is a complete idiot and I resent her speaking for women like me, I'm a feminist woman and as a feminist woman I can tell you the OP is full of it"--------and Person B posts the January quotes and says "uh, pardon me for doubting your bona fides as 'a woman'...."

....Then I think it's justified to quote Person A's past Forum posts.


(I didn’t include your last sentence in the quote, valid though it is, since it leads off in a new direction from the point I was wanting to make, here.)

Of course, sex-change surgery makes it possible for a person to have once been a sperm donor and now by a woman.

It's still a jerk move (pg version of the phrase).

It's at least socially negligent.

My point in #79.

:ticking-out-tongue smiley::

I don't try to copy people's posts! Honest I don't!

If I were gonna plagiarise I'd quote Shakespeare.

(I often don't read all of a thread or sometimes of a post before I hit the reply button. I guess that belongs in the Confessions thread?)

If the information in question appears in the resident's profile (by extension, presumably including the web page that may be referenced in the profile) or has been posted here in the forums by the resident, it is public information and so revealing it is not a TOS violation. Depending on context it might still be rude.

Revealing information obtained through any other channel, such as chat, IM, or SL voice, copying information from third-party forums (where it is impossible to verify whether the relevant resident is the actual poster of the info), or repeating RL information that was posted in the forums by somebody OTHER than the resident it is about (and the original post was probably also a violation), is a TOS violation.

Nodding to the above and leaning to agreeing with the second example as being a reasonable use of forum quotes and not a TOS violation.

Yet neither of those examples seems to fit the scenario at hand where (apparently):

Person A (earlier in the month in another thread) posts something containing the term ‘buddy’ (referring to a friend).

Person B claims person A is a guy. Refers to person A as ‘buddy’ in two posts where he claims person A outed themselves in the forums ‘earlier this month’.

(To my mind, the use of the term ‘buddy’ for a friend is not gender specific, although a higher percentage of males may use the term than females.)

So, in the above example:

1) Person B asserts as if fact that person A is a guy and claims person A made this public within the forums earlier in the month.
2) Person A has in fact not made any public proclamations or admissions as such (that I can find).

Is that good detective work? Harassment or disclosure under the TOS? Perhaps just getting carried away in the heat of a forum debate?

(edited to add, yes I may not be aware of the individuals entire posting history and I merely looked where person B said to look)

Claiming mere use of a specific word from the lexicon indicates the speaker 'must be' a certain gender is ridiculous. Women refer to each other as "guys" as in "you guys" and might also use "hey buster" or "hey buddy" in various ways referring to other people.

That branch is really weak.

Quotes in a forum post is fine hun, quoting or relaying a coversation in world is not. Here in the forums, anything you say in a post can be read by anyone. This is not the case for what you say in world. Simply don't write it if you don't want the world to know in the forums.

if i did sorry.